Sivut kuvina
[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

clearly discriminating between the parental authority of God as:
the universal Father, and his eternal paternity, as É.ie. of his’
only begotten Son. (5.) It is further acknowledged by the whole:
body of the Jews; Joh. v. 18. “Therefore the Jews sought.
to kill him, because he had said—that God was his Father
Fozzigz too, Aes; roy Qey] making himself equal with God,
[iaoy #2ury rotöv rá G)=3]*. Id. x. 33. “The Jews answered.
him saying, for a good work we stone thee not, but for blas-
o and because that thou being a man, makest thyself
- O - -- * - • . - -
Whatever be the benefit which our author's work may derive
from the bulk of the volume and quantity of the matter, he is
now fully at liberty to reap. The perusal may be safely recom-
mended to the reader, who has patience adequate to the at-
tempt, and wishes to have an experimental proof of the exalted
pitch of folly and obstimacy to which the human mind may be
raised, in opposing the truth; where the greatest degree of ig-
norance which is consistent with the largest proportion of con-
ceit, have their full and unrestricted operation on its faculties.
We have now, we trust, fully attained the object with which
we undertook the present Review; and have not only demon-
strated the pitiable imbecility of the vile production before us;
but have evinced the unassailable stability of the truths to which
it is opposed. But though we have incidentally exhibited spe-
cimens of the talents and acquirements of its author, we feel
conscious that we have conveyed but a faint and inadequate idea
of the work. To do justice to the blunder, ignorance, and
dishonesty which are profusely scattered through every part, nay
page of it, would indeed require a volume, much larger than
we could find patience to read, much less to compose. What-
ever be the subjects on which the author speaks, whether on his
trusty friends Philo or Josephus, or his christian brethren the
Ebionites and Esseans, we discover the same total ignorance of
the subject on which he is engaged. As these are charges which
may be made good and valid in a narrow space; we shall offer
a few specimens, by which they seem to be substantiated 'be-
youd controversion. - -
We insist, but incidentally on the practical blunder on which
our author has founded and erected his system; in which he
undertakes to vindicate the Unitarian Creed, by proving the
whole body of the Scripture text.corrupted, from which it either
derives its purity, or fixes its foundation in the clouds. If we
even overlook this absurdity, another directly stares us in the

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

face. The origin which he assigns those sophisticated parts,
of the sacred text, in ascribing them to the early Heretieks,
involves a contradiction not less supremely absurd. Both the
sects, into which they branched, rejected the prophetical wri-
tings,” on which the proscribed passages are obviously built;
nay, rejected the very doctrines which those passages tend to
support: the Gnostics having denied that our Lord was at all
born, the Ebionites that he was born unless in the natural
way +.
. Let us even wave these objections, and grant, that the testi-
monies to which he appeals, are genuine, and, in point; even
on their evidence, his theory may be fundamentally overthrown,
by means of the very concessions, which he has made. Sleu-
der as the "spoo is which the Unitarian Creed derives from
the testimony of Jews or Heathens, even this nominal or appa-
rent advantage, he has contrived to betray into the enemies'
hands. The doctrine of the Trinity, which his predecessors
have commonly traced to the corruptions of Platonism; he ab-
solutely vindicates from the aspersion, explicitly denying that
they possess any thing in common. The mystic theology of St.
John he affirms is only to be explained by the modified Pla:
tonism of Philo. Though Philo has explicitly maintained all
the peculiar doctrines of the Orthodox Faith, without acknow-
ledging one characteristic tenet of the Unitarian Creed: though
he has absolutely abjured that Creed, by denying that any thing
human or corporal could be annexed to the Son of Godf. The
allegorising spirit of Philo still afforded a loop-hole of evasion,
to escape the consequences of these unanswerable concessions,
Yet even this advantage the iugenious advocate before us has
contrived to throw away; from the first passage which he quotes
from Philo, he not only infers, but proves, the personality of
the Logos, asserting his identity with Christ (p. 4.).
... Having advanced so much to illustrate and set off Qur air
thor's polemical talents; we would not willingly disuliss the
subject of his work, without offering some specimens of his
skill iu translation. In a reference to Orig. Lib, II, we are
informed, p. 181, “ and other Jews give the name of Ebionites
to those who received Jesus as the Christ.” The original of
this passage is thus expressed; xzi Eğiovaio, Xengarićany of &zo
'Isèaiwy to Inov, & Xolotów wagoséussol, in which, of course,

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

s! &mb Ibbaiaw, signifies other Jews,” xenwaričaci is taken as an active verb, and EGiovatoi consequently as a noun in the accusative. If this improvement, however, has not the authority of the Greek, it possesses at least that of the Latin, if the old version of Gelenius be taken as authority; “ et Ebionati dicuntur a ceteris Judaeis, qui Jesum pro Christo receperunt :” where xongarićeat is, however, properly rendered “dicuntur.” Conf. Orig. Tom. I. p. 385. n. f. ed. Bened. On confronting the original Latin with the following English version, which has been already noticed, (supr. p. 847) we are at a loss whether to admire more, the accuracy or homesty of the translator; “In

the days of Tiberius Caesar many impieties were perpetrated not

in Judea only; even in Rome the city of royalty many impieties were perpetrated.” P. 106. “ In diebus Tiberii Caesaris hon tantum in Judaea tales factae sunt stultitiae, sed et Romae, et in omnibus terris dominii ejus fecerunt stultitias majores, quam stultissimi ex populis.” We pass over the absurdity of making Josippon term “Rome, the city of royalty” while Jerusalem was standing; the grammatical skill by which that meaning is extracted from the words “ Romas—in omnibus terris dominii ejus” rather induces us to suspect, that “dominii” has been taken in a sense and construction, which may be easily discovered from the translation. . With this remark we commit the vile work before us, to that obscurity in which it has long lain; and in which it should have continued for us, had it not been for the unwise zeal of its be. sotted admirers. The author, whose pretensions we have by this time fully exposed, is, as it appears, a person of some celebrity, in the estimation of the sect of which he is a minister. By enrolling his volume in the “Catalogue of Books distributed by the Unitarian Society for promoting Christian Knowledge and the Practice of Virtue,” they have imposed the duty on us of furnishing the bane with its antidote. While we are curious to ascertain the sense, of the reverend conclave who aim at this object by such means, on the best method of propagating irreligion and the practice of vice; we venture to believe that we have already taken one effectual step towards frustrating their success in their infamous endeavours. We are indeed grossly deceived in their characters, if for the future, they prove not more shy, in committing themselves, with another blundering advocate; if, even at present, they do not heartily rue the hour, in which they incautiously exposed their own preten'sions to learning and sense, by making a common cause, with the wretched dunce, who has drawn down our animadversion.


[ocr errors]

RT. II. The Cadet; a Poem, in Sir Parts : containing Remarks on British India. To which is added, Egbert and Amelia ; in Four Parts: with other Poems. By a late' : Resident in the East. In Two Volumes. Small 8vo, pp. 463. , Jennings. 1814. -

THIS title page is what, in the jargon of his country, an American would denominate a lengthy one; and it is but too

ominous of the book itself. The sight of two closely printed,

volumes of verses is, indeed, always enough to make the critic,

who has to review them, feel a sort of shudder; and it is not often that, in the perusal of them, he receives any indemnification for his preliminary fears. On the present occasion, we have suffered that which seems to be the common lot of our fratermity; namely, apprehensions, too well justified by the event. The preface to these volumes does not afford much ground for hope, either in its style, or its tenor. The author is “a very young man,” and when the poems were composed, “ was still a minor.” This excuse, which has been offered at least a million of times before, may, and in fact ought to gain pardon for an exuberance of imagination, and an unformed taste, but it only renders more heinous the terrible sin of dulness. What is to be expected from the frost of age, when even the fire of youth fails to produce the signs of vigour. The writer appears, in reality, to be visited by heavy forebodings. His book, he Says,

“ May possibly drop from the press, with many others, which fame shall reject as unworthy; and may be doomed, with them, to sail down the daily current of chance, until, pelted at by the swarms from the critic hive, it may miss the haven of popularity.; and overwhelmed at length, by the blustering squalls of splenetic censure, sink never to rise again.” - - - - - * *

[ocr errors]

We cannot say that we greatly admire either the figurative language or the style of this sentence, and we can laugh, with infinite good humour, at the hackneyed accusation which it makes against the candour of critics; but we must own that in one point the author is tolerably right, and that it is highly possible that same will act in the manner which he anticipates. Besides, the modern practice of beginning with an attack on critics, is almost always indicative of, and prompted by, an awkward and unwilling 'consciousness of demerit. “Sure you don't suspect me of having robbed you?” has betrayed the guilt of more than one rogue who was not previously suspected.


[ocr errors][ocr errors]

The Cadet, be it known, is a poem, in six parts, filling almost a hundred and sixty pages, and consisting, we imagine, of nearly four thousand lines. “Too much of a good, thing,” says the old adage: what then must we say of a bad one | The first part. is chiefly employed in repeating over and over again certain complaints against the climate of India, and against other disagreeable circumstances, among which the crows and the want of verdure come in for their full share of censure. “ Mournful my theme, and dull the task assigned,” exclaims the author, and sooth to say, he adapts the style to the subject, and is as dull as heart can desire. Against “ hamper’d etiquette” he glows with a manly rage, and labours hard to render it as hateful as possible. -

“The Colonel’s wife (says he) demands the highest place,
And those less great must bear unjust disgrace.

Frequent you'll hear the Major’s lady cry, o

• Pray who taught you to hold your head so high.” ‘’

. . . . A Captain’s wife to give herself such airs — . . . . “I’ll tell the Major, when he comes up stairs.” . .

Then o'er the boards she takes a lengthened stride,
And seats her down on Madam’s dexter side—
Here, like unkemmelled dogs, the women pother,
Growl, shew their teeth, and snarl upon each other.”

After a good deal more of the same sort, he remembers that his subject is The Cadet, and that the Cadet is not yet embarked. Accordingly, he puts his hero on ship-board, and proceeds to bewail his luckless fate, in being exposed to the rudeness of the commander of the vessel; an evil which, when it happens, is, we suspect, shared with the Cadet by the rest of the passengers. , - : The second part is opened by a heavy lamentation over his own mischance, in having been sent to India, and consequently torn from those friends whom “affection solder'd to his breast.” His sorrow for the loss of his father does more credit to his heart, than his manner of expressing it does to his head; and now that we are on this subject; it is merely justice to say, that he seems to be a good-natured and well-intentioned young man. The troubles of the Cadet soon come thick upon him. He is marched up to the Cadet establishment, under the care of a serjeant, and is under the hard necessity of submitting to the iutolerable drudgery of being drilled for six months:

“Four dreary hours paraded every day,
And with no other choice than to obey.”

8 . In

« EdellinenJatka »