replies, but I have endeavoured to preserve his own expressions. The Venerable Company was inexorable. It required of him an engagement to confine his religious instructions to the servile repetition of the words of the Catechism, and gave him fifteen days for consideration. He apppealed, by a respectful memorial, to the Council of State; but in vain. During this distressing fortnight, he had to sustain the remonstrances of his superiors in rank and office, the pressing intreaties of his friends, and the heart-rending pleadings of those most dear to him. The fortnight elapsed; and on Nov. 6, 1818, the Council of State declared his place

vacant.

I have derived these particulars from the Pièces relatives à la Destitution du Ministre Malan, containing the correspondence on both sides, without any comment. But, with regard to this publication,

II. M. Chenevière charges M. Malan with " concealing that which was most to the purpose, the Extract from the Records of the Council of State, declaring that he had been deprived of his office for insubordination to his superiors." So far as I can judge of this matter, it appears that M. C. takes advantage of a mere inadvertency, to advance a very harsh, not to say cruel, accusation. I find at p. 52, M. Malan's request to the President of the Company, for a copy of the charge (Préavis) submitted to the Council, and of the definitive sentence. Then follows the answer of the Secretary, informing him that the Company would permit him to read the Extract from the Registers, but that it belonged to the Council alone to grant a copy; and that the charge presented to the Council was part of the correspondence between the two bodies, and not allowed to be communicated to any individual. To these two letters the following note is annexed by M. M.: "I have also requested of the Secretary of State an extract from the Registers of the Noble Council, concerning my dismission; and it was soon sent me." Now to me it appears probable that this extract was an official document of two or three lines, not essential to the narrative; though I think it ought to have been inserted. But I can

reasonably imagine no dishonourable motive for the omission; and as for the alleged crime of insubordination, it would be absurd to charge him with an inclination to suppress it, for it is plentifully made in other papers of the same pamphlet.

M. Chenevière occupies nine pages more (pp. 67-75) in his vituperation of M. Malan. But I cannot allow myself to trespass upon your kindness, by offering detailed remarks upon them. At p. 68, are eight formal charges. The 6th I know to be false, both in letter and spirit: and besides, how inaccurate, to say the least, is it to represent M. M. as distinguishing persons by the name of Momiers,” when that is the offensive and insulting appellation which his enemies have invented or revived, for the purpose of vilifying him and other pious people! The 8th is merely a constructive offence, and which might be laid against the most innocent person in the world. The remaining six describe acts and proceedings which every Dissenting Minister in Great Britain does, and feels it to be his duty and honour to do, so far as the circumstances are analogous. With regard to all the rest of M. C.'s statements, I desire no other justification of my friend than that opinion which you, Sir, and all your dispassionate readers must pronounce, upon the accuser's own shewing. I appeal to any

man who has but a moderate acquaintance with the rights of human nature, whether the treatment of M. Malan by the Ecclesiastical power has been any other than a constant course of INJUSTICE, CRUELTY, and TrRANNY.

I feel deeply indebted to you for having allowed me to occupy so many pages of the Repository; far indeed beyond what I at first intended, yet much less than I should have to write if I were to pursue into all their turns and windings, the subterfuge, perversion, oppression, and persecution which have been resorted to by those whom I have very reluctantly felt myself compelled, from a sense of duty to the cause of integrity and liberty, thus to hold up in their proper colours.

J. PYE SMITH.

mences January 1, A. U. 754.” This distinction is essential.

*

By the authors of "L'Art de vérifier les Dates" the birth of Christ is placed in the year of Rome 748 (3d ed., Vol. I. 98): and Mr. Mann, who wrote a Dissertation expressly on the subject, assigns Herod's death to 750, and our Saviour's birth to 748. Such a coincidence of opinion between the Master of the Charterhouse and the learned Benedictines to whom I have just referred, is extremely memorable.

I shall not conclude this note, with out remarking on a passage in Tertullian, (adv. Marcion. IV. Ch. iv.,) which has frequently been cited by the oppugners of the authenticity of the introductory chapters in the several gospels of Luke and Matthew. "Finis ergo ducendus est contentionis, pari hinc inde nisu fluctuante. Ego meum dico verum, Marcion suum. Ego Marcionis adfirmo adulteratum, Marcion meum. Quis inter nos determinabit, &c. ?" Thus much, and no more, has generally been transcribed, from this chapter in Tertullian, by the writers to whom I have alluded. But they should not have stopped here. The African father expressly claims to have antiquity and current reception in his favour; nor was the question, whose copy of Luke was genuine-Marcion's or Tertullian's a simply personal question. "Quis inter nos determinabit, nisi temporis ratio, ei præscribens autoritatem, quod antiquius reperietur, et ei præjudicans vitiationem, quod posterius revincetur? In quantum enim falsum corruptio est veri, in tantum præ. cedat necesse est veritas falsum." Afterwards he says, "that his [Ter

Of Nicholas Mann some account is given in the Literary Anecdotes of the Eighteenth Century, (Vol. 11. 165, 705, &c.) and we would gladly have known

more.

tullian's] own copy was the more ancient, because Marcion himself did for some time receive it."*

So far as Tertullian and Marcion were concerned individually, the matter in dispute could not with readiness be settled. Their respective assertions determined nothing. Tertullian proceeds, accordingly, to employ arguments, of the force of which his readers will form a judgment.

John xx. 31. "These are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing ye might have life through his name." Such was the object of all the evangelists, and not of John only, in drawing up memoirs of their Master. Their design, however, and their manner of accomplishing it, have been mistaken. Lesst represents Eusebius as giving the following information, from a work of Clement of Alexandria, in respect to John, "that' he had written πνευματικόν ευαγγέλιον, a gospel which treated especially of the divine nature of Christ, the others being principally employed on his human." Τον • Ιωάννην εσχατον συνιδοντα, ότι τα σωματικά εν τοις ευαγγελίοις δεδηλωται, προτραπέντα ὑπο των γνωρίμων, πνευματι θεοφορηθεντα, πνευματικον ποιησαι ευαγγελιον.

What is there concerning the divine or even the human nature of Christ in the words thus quoted? It is not Clement, it is not Eusebius, but Less, who introduces these topics, and makes this unwarrantable distinction between John and the rest of the evangelists. Take Lardner's more faithful, though not faultless, rendering of the passage-" John, observing that in the other gospels those things were related that concerned the body [of Christ], and, being persuaded by his friends, and also moved by the spirit of God, wrote a spiritual gospel."

By σωματικα are intended things corporeal, things falling under the report of the senses, and connected with the senses: a spiritual gospel, VEUMATIKOY EVAYYEλIO, is a gospel

Priestley's Hist. of Early Opinions, &c. IV. 104.

Authenticity of the New Testament, &c. 147.

Works, (1788,) II. 212.

which treats largely of things invisible and abstract. The distinction corresponds with what our Saviour himself takes (John iii. 12) between earthly and heavenly things. Accordingly, the gospel written by the beloved disciple records more of the discourses than of the actions of Christ-and discourses that were purposely and highly figurative. In this signification it is, exactly what Clement of Alexandria terms it, "a spiritual gospel.".

Acts ii. 23. "Him being DELIVERED by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God," &c. Bishop Pearce's Commentary here is, "Greek, having been given forth; i. e. sent into the world, and manifested by being made flesh, and dwelling among you, as it is said in John i. 14. See also Acts iv. 28." Now this translation and paraphrase are inadmissible. The word excOTOV bears no such sense as the learned prelate affixes to it: and Peter is now speaking exclusively of his Master's having been delivered up to the Jews; of which measure Judas Iscariot was the instrument. Schleusner (in verb.) renders the clause exceedingly well: "hunc, vobis traditum et proditum a Juda, comprehendistis."

Acts ii. 41. "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized." In the received text of the Greek Testament it is, of μey ev aoμevas αποδεξαμεμοι, κ. τ. λ. But Griesbach marks the adverb ασμένως with the sign of probable omission: and we may well suspect that it was added by some transcriber, to whom the force of the participle andetaμevo was not fully known. Aexual is simply to receive: anodεxual, to receive gladly. Compare, accordingly, the clause which has been cited with Acts xxi. 17, xv. 4, &c. &c. In a few instances the simple and the compound verb appear to be interchanged. Rom. viii. 23. 66 not only they, but ourselves also, who have the firstfruits of the spirit," &c. Dr. Taylor's paraphrase is, Not only is the bulk of mankind subject to many sorrows, but even we Apostles, who are of all men," &c.; and in his notes he assigns some reasons for understanding the statement as descriptive exclusively of the apostles.

In the first place, he says, that the

VOL. XIX.

3 Y

expressions αλλα και αυτοί, και ήμεις αυτοί are very emphatical." This is admitted: but when he adds, "and direct our thoughts to some persons of distinction and eminence," I cannot subscribe to his opinion; since he takes for granted what he ought to prove. Do such expressions always, or generally or necessarily, denote a few individuals of eminence and distinction? Paul here speaks of himself and his fellow apostles in common with the bulk of Christians: and the emphasis of his language aλλa kai auto, K. T. λ. consists in its marking out even believers in our Saviour as not exempted from certain natural evils. He who glances at Griesbach's outer margin, in loc., will perceive that ancient translators and paraphrasts were, like Dr. Taylor, embarrassed by the introductory words of ver. 23.

Further; This most valuable writer observes, that the clause "who have received the first-fruits of the spirit," is strictly true of the apostles only. However, "the first-fruits of the spirit" are not so much its choicest, richest gifts, as those of which the earliest disciples of Christ were the subjects. The term will be sufficiently explained by James i. 18: and in this sense it was perfectly applicable to such members of the church at Rome as had partaken in spiritual gifts; to the converts of the apostles, as well as to the apostles themselves.

In fine, I cannot agree with Dr. Taylor, that "there will be little or no argument in this verse, if it is understood of the whole body of Christians." Were only the apostles exposed to sufferings for their religion? Is it to them alone that the assurance in ver. 28 belongs? Surely, not. It follows then that Paul's reasoning and inferences call upon us for no very restricted explanation of the verse before us.

inclines to that more extensive interpretation for which I am pleading: in his paraphrase he employs less hesitating language than in his note. Eph. iv. 26, "Be ye ANGRY, and sin not. iv. 31, Let all ANGER be put away from you."-How are these passages to be reconciled to each other? I conceive, that the apostle when he says, "Be ye angry and sin not," has the act in his view-when he says, "Let all anger be put away from you," the habit. That anger is not essentially and absolutely unlawful, appears from Mark iii. 5; where we read that our Lord looked round, on his accusers, "with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts."

"Anger," remarks Hallett, (Notes, &c. I. 130,) "in the New Testament, is never spoken of with allowance, but in superiors towards their inferiors." This point he at great length endeavours to illustrate and establish (I. 129, &c., II. 358): and such is the principle on which he aims at explaining both the prohibition and the concession which I have quoted. The observations of the very able Annotator, are ingenious, without being conclusive. For Luke xv. 28, is a proof that anger can, in fact, be indulged by an inferior towards his elders. The older of the two brothers, in the parable of the prodigal son, was angry (wpyon), and would not go in therefore came his father out and entreated him." We know, besides, that children, youth, and even adults, often feel anger, and sometimes not unreasonably, at those who, nevertheless, are of the same rank and standing with themselves.

66

Paley's excellent definition of anger and his masterly observations upon the act and habit,* make it unnecessary for me to pursue the subject. N.

Brief Notes on the Bible.

No. XXIV.

God is Love! 1 John iv. 8, 16.

THIS declaration, one of the prost HIS declaration, one of the most tures, comes in the very teeth of Calvinism, which teaches that "God

M. Philos. B. iii. Pt. ii. Ch. vi. vii.

is wrath," unappeasable except by an infinite atonement; although nothing can be clearer than that man, being a finite creature, incapable of any thing infinite, cannot commit an infinite offence.

We are required, in devout and cordial sympathy with this text, to love God.

Dr. Young has well observed, "Love and love only is the loan for love."

And our Apostle has very appositely said, (ver. 19,) "Ve love him because he first loved us."

No impossibilities are enjoined upon mortals.

But, it is impossible to love an invisible being, without a fixed, unhesitating persuasion that he loveth us.

Who, and what description of persons, are thus required to love God?

All and every to whose knowledge, through the medium of the gospel, the requisition may extend: in other words, and in the course of ages, all mankind.

Then the injunction implies his universal love, co-extensive with the love that he requires.

Not his love for a class, impiously denominated the elect.

If there exist a man in the slightest degree doubtful of God's love to him, individually, who yet professes to love God, I pronounce him an unimposing, indeed, because an uncredited, hypocrite; his profession being contrary to nature, to that immutable nature implanted in him by his Creator. In that man observe the inseparable union of cant with insincerity.

It has been imputed to Unitarianism-as a beacon, I presume, to hapless mortals tending thitherward that it is a cold and heartless profession, that its meagre faith supplies no cheering hopes, no consolation upon a death-bed.

What! no consolation in the firm assurance that "God is Love ;" that our voucher for it is unimpeachable; that his tender mercies prevail over and pervade all his works; and in no instance so eminently, as in the paternal mission of Jesus, to certify a resurrection from the death impending?

No consolation, that we are passing into the hands of " our Father who is in heaven;" into his hands, whose