sentiments, without it being thought necessary to notice the very different views of the design of this Gospel entertained by other distinguished commentators, is the following passage:

"As far as respects the person of Jesus, there cannot be any more manifest proof of his divinity than that which is drawn from the religious worship which he has expressly claimed to himself, as in cap. v. 23, That all men should WORSHIP the Son as they worship the Father? He that worshipeth not the Son worshipeth not the Father. Never could Jesus have so spoken without blasphemy towards God, if he had been a mere man or a being inferior to the Deity. For he evidently ascribes to himself a parity and equality of majesty and dignity with the Father, while he requires of men the same religious worship."-Introd. Vol. III. p. 11.

Now, it would be useless for us to point out that this precious piece of reasoning is founded on a needless and unjustifiable translation of the word TIμ, contrary to the sense of all sober commentators, since it will be abundantly sufficient for us to quote our author's own annotation when he comes to the passage in the progress of his work. "What kind of honour is here meant [observe, he does not call it worship] plainly appears," he tells us, “ from the words τὸν λόγον ἀκούων and πιστεύων τῷ πέμψαντι, namely, to admit him as the Messiah, messenger of God, and interpreter of his will, and consequently to yield assent to the doctrines commanded by him in the name and at the command of God, and render obedience to all the moral injunctions of his religion ;" an interpretation the truth of which cannot with the appearance of reason be called in question, but which is perfectly Unitarian. That its author could give his sanction to the above passage from Tittman, adopting it as his own, it is for him to reconcile with candour and justice. We shall give one other example. On John v. 21, Mr. B. has the following annotation he translates, "As the Father can restore life to the dead, so also can the Son restore life to whom he will," and remarks, " Verbs active are often to be interpreted potentially: and that they must be so taken in the present passage is plain from the context, for Jesus means to shew that he has equal power with the Father, [ver. 19,] and he illustrates this by some examples of what kind of works he has received from the Father the power of performing. (Rosenm.)" We do not understand this. His power is equal with that of the Father, yet received from him, and of course dependent, that is inferior. Let us take the passage in its connexion, and can any one affirm that, according to the first principles of interpretation, it teaches the equality of the Son with the Father? Ver. 19, " Verily, verily, I say unto you, the Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise." With the exception of a needless qualifying clause which we inclose in brackets, we adopt the explanation of Mr. B. from Kuinoel. "He shews the Jews that so far from making himself [in all respects] equal with God, he professes that he is acting, not by his own proper authority, but refers the whole system of action to the will and pleasure of his Father, and therefore ought not to be accused of blasphemy.' Ver. 20, "For the

Father loveth the Son and sheweth him, i. e. enableth him to do," (dεkyo not only signifies to shew or teach, but has also sometimes the additional signification of impulse to action, and the imparting the faculty of doing what has been shewn: and that the word is here used in that sense is clear, Kuin. ap. Blomf.,) "enableth him to do all things that himself does, and

he will enable him to do greater works than these (than the miracles of healing, &c., which they had already seen), that ye may marvel. For as the Father can restore life to the dead," (we have no objection to Mr. B.'s translation,) "so also can the Son" (namely, as just before stated, by the Father's communicated power) "restore life to whom he will." We cannot understand how this passage is reconciled with, much less can be made to prove the equality of Jesus with the Father, nor can we attribute Mr. B.'s comment above given to a very impartial interpreter.

We must repeat, however, in conclusion, that we ascribe all which we think fair criticism must condemn, to the force of prejudice, and to a hasty adoption of what others had asserted favourable to his system, not to artifice or wilful injustice; and that in denying to our author the high merit of impartiality, which he so earnestly claims, we do not mean to question the general utility of his work. On the contrary, we strongly recommend it to our ministers, especially to the younger among them, and to other students of Scripture who possess the knowledge of Latin and Greek necessary for using it, as a cheap and valuable body of scriptural annotation. We trust that it will promote the just and rational interpretation of the New Testament, and thus, notwithstanding any prejudices or erroneous views and statements on particular subjects, essentially serve the cause of Christian truth. We desire to express our sense of the irrefragable truth and high importance of the principles of interpretation adopted, as well as of Mr. B.'s qualifications for applying them, where the doctrines of his church do not immediately interfere; and we shall hail with much pleasure the arrival of the concluding portion of his labours.

ART. IV. Considerations on the Impolicy and Inexpediency of Imprisonment for Debt: in a Letter to the Right Hon. Robert Peel, M. P. By Thomas Danvers, Esq. 8vo. pp. 36. Simpkin and Marshal. 1826. EVERY reflecting and humane mind is impressed with the present unsatisfactory state of the law as regards debtors in England. The subject is attended with great difficulties,-difficulties partly created by the law, and aggravated by the prejudices and passions of creditors. An appeal on this part of our jurisprudence could not have been made with more propriety to any one than to Mr. Peel, who has, we think we may say, surprised the liberal part of the public by his admirable measures in reform of our punitive law, and who has excited hopes in the breasts of all true lovers of their country of such further beneficial alterations in our commercial and criminal code, as shall make the statute-book conformable to the opinions and feelings of the more cultivated portion of the English people. We know nothing of Mr. Danvers, but he has written sensibly on this interesting topic, and his pamphlet is entitled to the more attention as he writes avowedly (and we lament the fact) from "a personal and practical experience of the evils" which he points out.

CRITICAL NOTICES.

ART. V. Lexicon Græco Latinum in Novum Testamentum, congesset Joh. Fried. Schleusner, in compendium redegit Johannes Carey, LL.D. Londoni: impensis B. Holdsworth. 1826.

THOSE who have studied, as we have had occasion to do, that fanciful but ingenious compound of speculations called the Palæoromaica, can scarcely fail to acknowledge the force of the observations which flow with propriety from the author's pen, on the singular want of practical scholar-like theological and biblical learning in England, as compared with the continental school, both of ancient and modern theologians. How comes it that so few men here venture out of the atmosphere of their sect, be it established or dissident, that "even the Roman Church, to the shame of Protestantism, has allowed greater freedom of discusto its members than has ever been enjoyed in those churches which profess to make free inquiry the boon which they offer and the very badge of their distinction"? Markland's Letters to Bowyer are very appositely referred to, and it may be doubted whether the Inquisition itself would inspire greater caution than weighed upon the minds of two such sincere and pious biblical inquirers in a Protestant country on more critical questions concerning the Greek text. How is it that within the last half century a host of truly valuable and laborious works have appeared on the Continent, perfectly impartial on, indeed carefully avoiding, all dogmatic questions, where they are not the immediate object of inquiry, zealously probing to the bottom every point of interest without stopping to inquire its bearing on the prepossessions or systems of any one ;-quoted, appealed to and relied on by all, on that very account, as witnesses of fidelity and unsuspected integrity; while here almost every thing that appears owes its very origin to controversial feelings, has the peculiar opinions of some sect, established or otherwise, to promote, and bears on every page the image and superscription of the master from whom it springs and to whose class of opinions it is to be referred ? This is no doubt owing in a great degree to the extraordinary appetite here for

discussion and proselytism on doctrinal points, from which, no doubt, great good arises collaterally, but upon which less stress is laid abroad. The principal cause, however, is the exclusive appropriation to one sect of almost the only means of attaining, except in rare instances, any profound theological or classical proficiency. Learning and a particular set of opinions are sought to be identified. A double aristocracy of rank and education keeps the inquirer at an immense distance. The scholar who should feel disposed to move out of the trammels of the only system in which almost exclusively he can acquire his knowledge, is at once a black sheep marked and shunned by the more privileged flock. If he is not one of them he can be nobody; he loses his caste in society as well as in literature. There is no mutual forbearance or courtesy engendered by the early collision and generous emulation of active minds by pursuits carried on with a variety of purpose, but in the same walks. The exclusive circle of rank, preferment, or even of education which that circle labours to maintain to be the only one for a gentleman moving in any sphere, is for ever shut against him who moves out of the orbit which well-defined orthodoxy has traced out. A levelling despotism of opinion must reign within such a system of education, and uncharitableness and dissatisfaction prevail without.

Can we wonder that the Dissenter, driven for his education to establishments which even the wealthy and zealous of his denomination can only found on a scale limited to the reception of persons of their own persuasion, should imbibe with his first impressions the same exclusive spirit of his party, and devote more than a due portion of his studies to its polemics? In short, where there is no catholic education, it is hardly to be wondered that catholicism should form no feature of our theological literature.

Those English scholars whose acquirements render them competent to the task, generally shun any application of their talent to the cultivation of theological or biblical learning, on account of the embarrassments in which a free pursuit of their subject is likely to involve them.

away this branch altogether, and has been able also to shorten the scriptural quotations considerably, not by omitting any of the references, but by leaving the reader to follow those references to the original, instead of setting them forth in his text. In this way, Dr. Carey has with, it is true, comparatively little labour to himself, formed a very valuable and compendious book, which we should hope will find its way to and enrich the collection, however scanty, of many a student who desires an honest, faithful and diligent guide to the original storehouses of revealed truth. The bookseller and publisher has brought himself legitimately within the jurisdiction of the Reviewer, as the announcer and prefacewriter of his book, and we shall not let the opportunity pass by of thanking him for the judiciousness of his undertaking, and the creditable manner in which it has been executed under his direction; not being ourselves at all averse to see our booksellers and printers assuming a more editorial character, and becoming the immediate planners and superintendents of works conducive to the substantial interests of literature or science.