Strong objections are made by the learned author to the rendering of iva λnwen, Matt. xxvi. 56. The editors reject the common verfion, "that it might be fulfilled," and fubftitute" fo that it was fulfilled;" as if the coincidence between the event and the prediction were merely cafual. This, as the animadvertor obferves, tends to deftroy the whole fyftem and force of prophecy, which certainly requires that the event fhould take place in order to fulfil what God had foretold; both being unquestionably in the view of Providence at the time of the utterance of the prophecy; but the animadvertor infifts that ivz admits not of the fenfe given to it by the tranflators. That to expiels what they would convey, are with the infinitive mood, would have been used by the evangelift, as Matt. viii. 24, xx. 53. He finds fault with Schleufner for giving this fenfe to iva, which, fays the learned author, he appears to have invented as it were "with a view to the paffages which relate to prophecy." "Ita impletum eft pradictum à prophetâ, non enim ideò prædio tum erat, ut fieret;" he difputes his authorities alfo, and infifts that both in 1 Pet. v. 6, and Rom. x. 31, to which Schleufner refers, the force of iva is not fimply eventual, but caufal, and be feems certainly right. We muft obferve, that Parkhurft gives an eventual fignification to iva, but undoubtedly in the very first paffages he cites it is ftrictly coufal, as Luke ix. 45, xi, 50, certainly however its caufal fignifica tion is fo common and general a one, especially in the facred writings, and the propriety of connecting prophecies and events in the view of providence fo great and glaring, that to depart in this inftance from the received text is evidently evafive, and tending to eftablish a doctrine very adverfe to the real end and defign of prophecy in general.

Matt. xxvii. 19, the comment of the tranflators on the form of baptifm begins thus: "As a fymbolical profeffion of that holy religion, which originated with the father, was taught by Chrift the Son, that is, the Servant and Mejenger of God." It is fo evidently the object of the tranflators in all cafes to represent our Saviour as no more than a fervant, meffenger, or prophet, that it is well to notice fuch paffages as the above. The author rightly obferves, that granting Tais fometimes to fignify fervant, and even that Chrift was a fervant, yet from Isaiah ix. 6, we must believe that it was the mighty God, &c. that took upon him the form of a fervant, and was made in the likeness of man; besides that in Heb. iii, we find the Meffiah evidently diftinguished as a fon, from a fervant.

The

וי

The author on Mark vii. 3, objects to the rejection of lo from the text, which the tranflators difcard on the authority of Griefbach. Its omiffion certainly feems not justifiable, both in regard to the fenfe of the paffage, and the weight of evidence against it.

Notice is taken of the conftant rendering of the term xápis by" favour," in the improved verfion, and not only the dif ference is shown between that and the word " grace," in a doctrinal point of view, but the term "favour" is ably proved to be in fome cafes entirely incapable of expreffing what must be implied by the word xapis, as 2 Cor. i. 12, where the xapist be is oppofed" as an influencing principle on the mind, to copix caprixn" In the new verfion undoubtσοφία σαρκικη edly the oppofition is almoft ridiculous, ("not with carnal wisdom, but by the favour of God.")

The learned author on Luke viii. 27, has occafion to enquire into the validity of Mr. Evanfon's objections to certain paffages of fcripture grounded on the ufe of Latin terms in Greek characters, which, he would contend, is contrary to the ufage of any claffical writer of the apoftolic age; Mr. E. fixes almost exclusively (in his book on the diffonance of the gofpels,) on the middle of the fecond century, for the introduction of this mode of writing; but the author before us. very properly produces the authority of Plutarch, who was born only ten years after our Saviour for the use of fuch terms, particularly eyev, a word especially noticed by Mr. Evanfon, who affirms it to be not cuftomary with Luke to introduce fuch terms; paffages both from his gospel and the Acts of the Apoftles are produced which Mr. E. certainly overlooked. The author might have referred to Polybius, who wrote 150 years before Chrift, and who, as Parkhurft has shown, under the term λely, adopted moft of the Latin military terms, This alfo muft ferve as a reply to Mr. E.'s citation of Lucian, who, he remarks, notices the practice in the cafe of one of the Greek hiftorians of Aurelius's wars with the Parthians, in fuch a manner, as evidently to fhow, not only that he disapproved of it, but that the practice was even then quite novel-how fo, if it was the flyle and manner of Polybius ?

Luke xxiii. 43, is not paffed over. Mr. Evanfon was for expunging the piffage, "to-day thou shalt be with me in Pa radife," because it was not to be found in Marcion's gofpel and other reputed heretics, in fome of the older copies in Origen's time, nor in Justin, Irenæus, or Tertullian. Dr. Laurence has confidered this at length, as we fhall have occa fion to notice, but the short remarks of the learned animadvertör

6

vertor are fufficient to fhow how artfully or how ignorantly the objections have been advanced and maintained by Mr. Evanfon and his followers. We are not however quite fure that the reference to the Quaft. et Refpons. ad Orthodoxos, will be confidered as a decifive teftimony of Juftin's to the authenticity of the paffage What is obferved of the negative testimony of Tertullian and Origen is very juft, but more fully difcuffed by Dr. Laurence; and in a work that has alfo lately made its appearance, we mean Mr. Falconer's Bampton lectures.

Upon the commencement of the gofpel of St. John the author has many very judicious remarks; he points out fome glaring contradictions and abfurdities into which the tranf lators fall by their interpretation of the word px, John i. 1, 2; and he very ably fhows, that our Saviour, lo far from affimilating himself with the Gods, to whom the word of God is faid to have come, particularly infifts upon certain diftinc-" tions which raised him far above them. Upon the use of the word yivouas in the fenfe of to create, he has fome very just obfervations, which our limits alone preclude us from giving at large. On John vi. 42, the tranflators having pointed it out to their readers to note that the Jews in this paffage call Jefus the fon of Jofeph without being contradicted by the Evan. gelift, the animadvertor very juftly remarks, that if the taunts of the Jews are to be advanced as proofs, our Lord might be fhown to have had a devil, to have been a blafphemer, a malefactor, &c. Our Lord's fubsequent difcourfe, however, the animadvertor contends, amounts to a direct reply in the very paffage referred to. On John xvii. 5, the interpretation put upon the words by the tranflators, is very ingeniously expofed, and fhown to involve the most palpable contradictions both of reafon and scripture.

Having been rather more diffufe than we intended in our review of this learned and ingenious tract, and having another fill before us, we muft pafs over many able criticisms which have attracted our notice and attention, and in which the author acquits himself admirably; we shall only obferve that on the celebrated text, 1 Tim. iii. 16, the author difcards at once the reading %, as making the paffage abfolute nonfenfe, for who ever heard of a "mystery juftified," or a "mystery received up into glory ?"-he is by no means difpofed to admit that the reading is in the fenfe of " he who," can be shown to be confiftent with the idiom and grammar of the Greek language, and concludes therefore, that notwithftanding all that has been alledged to the contrary, Osos muft. be the genuine and true reading.

We have taken a larger view of this tract in order to ex. cite the attention of the public to it, or at least of the learned, and of the clergy in particular. The Unitarians of the prefent day haye revived many objections which have in times paft been fully difcuffed; but as the publication of Griefbach's teftament and collections, forms a grand æra in biblical learn ing and criticism, it may be judged neceffary to examine afresh, and on both fides, the prefent ftate of things, and to afcertain the exact amount of the difcoveries that have been made, and of the new light which may be faid to have been thrown on the text of the Holy Scriptures; on these accounts it is that we recommend fo ftrongly the replies that have ale ready been made, to what we cannot but confider as the Unitarian perverfions of fcripture.

We now pass on to the review of the fecand tract by the learned Dr. Laurence. The doctor tells us in his introduc tion that his object is wholly critical, and that he has felected but few points, out of very many open to difcuffion, and he claims, as a critic, to be confidered as impartial; philological truth being the fole object of all critical refearches. The table of contents, which is very fhort, will give us a view of the particular points difcuffed.

Ch. I. Introductory remarks.

Ch. II. Authenticity of the two firft chapters of St. Matthew.

Ch. III. Authenticity of the two firft chapters of St. Luke. Ch. IV. Intermediate ftate between death and the refurrection. Authenticity of Luke xxii. 43,

Ch. V. Perplexing anomalies in the theory of articles. Ch. VI. Exiflence of an evil being. Tranflation of the words Σαν and Διάβολος.

Ch. VII. Trinflation of the word "Ayseños, Heb. i. Dif puted books. Griefbach. Conclufion.

In the introductory remarks Dr. L. does not omit to notice the infidious afpect of the title of this new verfion; the careful fuppreffion by the editors of their own characterifti. cal denomination, and their ftrange affumption, as he terms it, of an archiepifcopal coat of mail; he notices likewife, as Mr. N. does, the continual deviations from archbifhop New come, "there being fcarcely a fingle page in which fuch deviations do not occur," p. 4. This circumftance, together with their own declaration, that they propofe to" diveft the facred volume of the technical phrafeology of a fyftematic theology," evidently prove it to be a work conducted on party principles, contrary to their general profeffions.

In chapter II, the doctor very ably points out the abufe they make of a reference to Michaëlis, on the fubject of critical conjecture. They firft ftate the general rule of criticism to be against the ufe of it; then they propofe certain cafes of exception, citing the following paffages in particular, John i. 1, vi. 4, Romans ix. 5, which they alledge to have been plaufibly amended by the Socinians; referring for fupport to Michaëlis, though that great critic in the very place to which they refer, not only politively objects to all conjectural criticifm, but cites the Socinian amendments of two of the very paffages adduced, as inftances of prejudice and party bias. He even goes to far as to propofe fimilar emendations of the text by the orthodox party, and afks how the Socinians. might be expected to bear them?

After thus abufing the authority of Michaëlis upon this point of conjectural criticifm, they proceed, the doctor remarks, in the very commencement of their book, in the fame way to flight the authority of their chofen textuary, Griefbach; who, though he declares his rule to have been "nil mutetur è conjecturâ, nil fine teftium nempe codicum verfionum, Patrum, auctoritate," and admits the two first chapters of St. Matthew, to be extant in all manuscripts, verfions, &c. is not allowed to flamp that credit upon them, but that portion of fcripture is marked as fufpicious by the editors, in the very face of his authority.

Some excellent remarks occur upon the attempt of the éditors to get rid of the relation of the miraculous conception upon the credit of the Ebionite gofpel of St. Matthew and the concurrent teftimony of Epiphanius and Jerome. Dr. Priestley's favourite authority, the learned Jeremiah Jones, is cited against them with confiderable effect; Epiphanius's teftimony, (as far as it is of value) is fet in its proper light, and Jerome's thown to be clearly against them, his mention of paffages in the fecond chapter of Matthew, as being in the Nazarene golpel, is a flrong proof of the authenticity of those parts of fcripture, admitted by Jones, Michaëlis, Marsh, &c. Dr. L. ingeniously enough afks the Unitarians, whether, believing Epiphanius's account of the Ebionites to be true, and contending that they were the primitive Hebrew chriftians, they are prepared to admit that the primitive Hebrew chrif. tians believed all that Epiphanius afcribes to the Ebionites, fuch as, that "God committed the government of this world to the devil, of the world to come to the Chrift, and that the Chrift, who was a celeftial being, fuperior to the archangels themfelves, defcended upon and was united to the inan Jefus

at