sinful; however he may condemn the habit? Nor, in truth, do our Lord's precepts on this head speak a different language from that of his example. "I say unto you, that whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause, shall be in danger of the judgment." Why this restriction, why these words, "without a cause," if Christianity does not tolerate the act of anger? Thus limited, the declaration, in its spirit, if not its letter, fully accords with Paul's advice, "Be ye angry and sin not:"-- Should ye be angry, take care that ye sin not, either by manifesting this warm displeasure without reason, or by indulging it too eagerly and too long. On the words in Matt. v. 22, "Whosoever is angry with his brother WITHOUT A CAUSE," Archbishop Newcome (Translation, &c., in loc.) remarks, "If we omit εική, with some MSS. and versions, reason must limit the clause." This is extremely well observed. But the preponderance of authorities favours the present reading: Griesbach retains it, accordingly, in his text; and from his ample and convincing note upon it, in the Commentarius Criticus, &c., I shall transcribe a few sentences, which are confirmatory of my argument. Eik abest a B. 48. 198. Aeth. Arab. Polygl. Saxon. Vulg. et patribus nonnullis. De consulto omissum esse, nulli dubitamus. Tantus enim erat plerorumque veteris ecclesiæ doctorum in morum disciplina rigor, ut non solum To opisa K, sed omnem omnino irain lege Christianâ prohiberi censerent. Horum aliquis To K, velut Christianæ perfectionis studio officiens et sanctissimo nostro magistro minus dignum, suspicabatur in textum insertum fuisse ab iis, qui commodiore viâ in cœlum pervenire cuperent. Expunxit igitur in suo codice. Hunc postea alii, iisdem præjudicatis opinionibus in transversum acti, sequebantur.” *

The New Testament is comparatively silent concerning anger. I have endeavoured, nevertheless, to prove that it distinguishes between the habit and the act: the habit it forbids and

*The whole of the note admirably merits the regard of every theological scholar. In the concluding sentences of it a severe and dignified rebuke is given to C. F. Matthaei.

by the cross of Jesus his mother and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas and Mary of Magdala.” Compare with this account what the other Evangelists have recorded concerning the same hour and spectacle. Matthew's language is, [xxvii. 55, 56,]

many women were there, beholding [looking on] at a distance, who had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering unto him: among whom was Mary of Magdala, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee's children." The narrative of Mark is to the same effect [xv. 40, 41]. Luke tells us, [xxiii. 27,] that Jesus was followed to Calvary by a great company of people and of WOMEN, who also bewailed and lamented him, and [49], that all his acquaintance and the women who followed him FROM GALILEE, stood at a distance, beholding these things. We learn, moreover, that Mary of Magdala and one of her companions witnessed their Master's burial. Here then we have substantial agreement and undesigned coincidence: what the three first Evangelists have recorded, indicates the high probability of John's minuter relation concerning some of the attendants at the crucifixion. One apparent dissonance, I confess, exists. While John says, "there stood by❞ [apa]" the cross," &c., the other evangelical historians use the words AFAR OFF [ano panpoley, Matt. Mark,

panpoler, Luke]. I call this an apparent dissonance, because the slightest reflection will convince us,

*There are habits of temper, no less than of conduct. Single and occasional expressions of temper are like single and occasional acts. + Pp. 608, &c. Luke xxiii. 55.

either that John describes a point of time distinct from what his predecessors advert to, when they speak of the women, &c., looking on afur off, or that the Greek term demands here a restricted meaning. There is no faint probability in Mr. Wakefield's opinion, that those of the spectators who, previously to the act of taking down the body of Jesus from the cross, had been permitted to stand at no very great distance from the sufferer, were afterwards compelled to go farther from the appalling scene. We know, too, that considerable or long distance is not necessarily and universally denoted by the adverb panpole, which must often be rendered in English, as I would, in the present instance, translate it, by the expression, at some distance." I have dwelt on this seeming discrepancy for two reasons: it has escaped the notice of most of the commentators; and I am not a little desirous of engaging some of the readers of these remarks, to communicate their opinion, whether it corroborate or rectify my own.

Gal. v. 2: "— I, Paul, say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing." In Paley's Hora Pauline, Art., Epis. to the Gal., No. x. p. 204, [1st ed.,] note, the following sentence occurs: "The second reason which Mr. Locke assigns for the omission of the decree, (Äcts xv.,) viz. ' that St. Paul's sole object in the Epistle, was to acquit himself of the imputation that had been charged upon him of actually preaching circumcision,' does not appear to me to be strictly true." Now Locke's own words should have been quoted; whereas his supposed meaning is stated in the language of the writer who animadverts on him. As to the object of "the epistle," no real difference of opinion exists between these eminent authors. In that part of the "Paraphrase," &c., which Dr. Paley has in view, Locke speaks of a single portion of "the epistle," (ch. ii.,) and not of the whole of it: he says, "The mention of the decree was superfluous-and impertinent to the design of St. Paul's NARRATIVE here;" and, again, “It is plain that his aim

* Comm. on Matt. in loc. Schleusner, in verb.

in what he RELATES here of himself,” &c. No expositor is more consistent with his own declarations, sentiments and reasonings than Mr. Locke: after having, in the Synopsis, described it as the business of this epistle" to dehort and hinder the Galatians from bringing themselves under the bondage of the Mosaical law," there was little probability that, in the sequel, he would hold forth the purpose of the letter as being personal. Had the writer of the Hore Pauline, when he undertook to abridge Mr. Locke's remark, substituted for the first clause, what follows, viz. "that St. Paul's sole object in this part of the epistle was," &c., every thing would have been correct, in regard to statement.

2 Thess. ii. 2: " by word, nor by letter," &c. According to Michaelis, † we find here an intimation, that not only epistles were forged in St. Paul's name to propagate this error, [concerning the approach of the general judgment,] but that certain calculations and false prophecies were also applied to the same purpose."Further, " the calculation of which St. Paul speaks, and which he terms λoyos." But on what authority has this very ingenious scholar thus interpreted the Greek term? I meet with no such authority amidst the profusion of Schleusner's definitions, references and citations; and though I am far from maintaining that the expression may never adınit and demand the sense of calculation, yet I ask, whether its present import must not be collected from the context, compared with 1 Thess. v. 1? Spirit now signifies pretended inspiration and prophecy-word, oral doctrine or teaching, in contradistinction to "by letter, as from us." 2 Thess. ii. 15. Ib. 66

as from us." Upon which clause Paley puts, as a question, "Do not these words, & åper, appropriate the reference to some writing which bore the name of these three teachers [Paul, Sylvanus and Timotheus"]? Yet I am doubtful whether the inquiry should be answered in the affirmative. Other letters of our apostle are written apparently in

* See, moreover, his Introd. to the Epistle.

+ Introd, &c., (Marsh,) IV. Hor. Paul. in loc.

the joint name of himself and of some one or more of his associates; as of Sosthenes in the first, and of Timothy in the second to the Corinthians, &c., &c.; while the reasonings, admonitions, &c., are understood to be Paul's exclusively. It is, besides, in our author's manner to speak of himself occasionally in the plural number. I Thess. ii. 18 may perhaps be deemed an ambiguous example; even though it be interpreted by the two following verses. But ch. iii. 1, and many other passages of the same form, are unequivocal.

SIR,

N.

Evesham, October 4, 1824. YOUR correspondent, "A Cal

number,

536,) complains of "erroneous statement" in your pages, when the orthodox system concerning the Trinity, &c., is referred to; and of Trinitarians he says, that "in their own conceptions, they fully believe and strenu ously assert the Unity of God." I beg leave to refer him and your readers to the report of a sermon preached by the Rev. T. G. Ackland, A. M., St. Mildred's Bread Street, May 25th, 1823, Trinity Sunday, text-Psalm lxxiii. 15, given in an orthodox perio. dical publication, called the Pulpit, Vol. I. p. 116: "Having thus proved the eternal existence of three Gods, each to be acknowledged and worshiped as God, and it being distinctly commanded that we should worship but one God; it follows of necessity that the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity must so-and only so, be worshiped." Can words express a greater contradiction? The reporter remarks, "On the present, as on all occasions that we have had the pleasure of hearing Mr. A., we were well pleased to observe the thorough acquaintance which he displayed with the doctrines of revealed truth, and the great ability and zeal with which he sought to impress them on the minds of his hearers." Had it not been for the above remark, one would have been tempted to suspect the reporter to be some wag that wished to turn the sermon of the Rev. Mr. Ackland to ridicule.

D.

HA

favoured my answer to Mr. Bakewell's first letter, sent to you about three weeks ago, with insertion in the last number of the Repository, I think it would have appeared that I had by anticipation replied to all the material parts of his second letter. I have brought forwards my witnesses, in support of what I had asserted; he has adduced his on the contrary side: let the public judge between us.

It is no pleasure to me to receive or to relate statements to the discredit of either individuals or communities. Most sincerely should I rejoice, could I believe it to be the fact, as Mr. B. asserts, that "Geneva is eminently

I

lence of its morals;" and that it "has escaped, if not entirely, at least in a great measure, the contagion of infidelity." I have given my evidences for thinking differently: but I repeat that I shall most cordially rejoice, if, on this question of fact, my informa tion should be found incorrect. fear, however, that it is far otherwise. To the benevolence and generosity of the Genevese, in relieving the dis tresses of their Savoyard neighbours, I would give all honour: and I thank Mr. Bakewell for mentioning the interesting facts. But these do not disprove my assertions. Nothing is more certain than that men may have much compassion for the temporal sufferings of others, and may contribute nobly to the promotion of benevolent objects; while they have no sense of the moral misery of sin in themselves, nor desire to remove it from others, but are manifestly irreligious, and even infidel and immoral. The philanthropy which feeds and clothes the body, praiseworthy and excellent as it is, is not a Christian virtue if it have not unspeakably stronger feelings for the guilt and misery of a sinful state, the moral slavery and degradation of the soul. It is observable that Mr. B. himself, or one of his principal authorities, explicitly disavows religion as the leading cause of the high morality which he attributes to the modern Genevese. He thus cites the testimony of one of his friends: "Geneva is unquestionably the most moral city in Europe: this I do not attribute to their