Palestine and the adjacent countries. But if, for the sake of argument, we were to allow, that Greek in that age was not so generally understood as is usually supposed, how does this circumstance affect the case of a Greek original of the Christian Scriptures? Greek was a language understood beyond the limits of Greece; nearly the whole body of the learned in the Roman empire were acquainted with it; and, considering the wonderful precision and force of that language, as well as its prevalence, it was the channel by which even mere human prudence would address what was intended for the use of man→ kind at large. There might be many reasons why it was 1 chosen by Divine Providence as the vehicle for conveying to posterity the truths of the Gospel Revelation. But if the boundaries of the Greek language were as narrow as the author represents, it would be illogical to infer from thence, that it was not the language of the original New Testament.

The third head of proofs advanced by the anonymous writer consists of numerous Latinisms which he believes he has dis covered in every part of the Greek Testament. He gives copious lists of words, phrases, constructions, Iotacisms, &c., which, in his judgment, support the conclusion, that the peculiarities of words, style, and syntax in our Greek Vulgate, are to he attributed to a servile version from the Latin. In this part of his work, we are free to confess, he displays a considerable degree of acuteness, but mixed up with so much error and absurdity, so many rash conjectures, improbable suppositions, and puerile conceits, that one might suppose his main object was to amuse by indulging the sports of a wayward fancy, rather than to instruct by a sober investigation of truth. It would be as tedious as useless to follow him into the details; but we must be allowed to observe, that this class of arguments are as little satisfactory as the former. Latinisms, to whatever extent they may prevail, do not necessarily infer a translation from a Latin original: they rather imply, that the Greek text proceeded from the pen of one who was accustomed to the Latin idiom. One supposition, at least, is as probable as the other; and if the Latinisms of the Gospel can be reasonably accounted for on any other supposition than that of a version from a Latin original, the Palæoromaic hypothesis falls to the ground. It would still remain to be proved by other evidence which supposition was the true one. Such is the legitimate inference allowing the Latinisms asserted by the author of Palæoromaica; but that they exist to the extent he supposes, is what he neither has proved, nor can prove. The contrary must be evident to every

Greek scholar who examines the inspired volume of the Greek Scriptures.

- Such is the line of argument by which it is attempted to support the strange theory of a Latin original of the New Testament. The author, it must be allowed, is ingenious, and imbued with no common degree of learning; but those who coolly examine the Palæoromaica, cannot fail to discover that his ingenuity is not accompanied with judgment, and that his erudition is multifarious rather than exact. The dangerous tendency of the hypothesis which he brings forward is well calculated to provoke inquiry, and, as the natural consequence of inquiry, opposition; for, as Bishop Burgess observes, “if, according to the Palæoromaican theory, neither the Greek Vulgate, nor the Latin Vulgate, is the original of the New Testament, the Christian is left without a standard and sanction for his faith or practice." Hence the Palæoromaica was immediately assailed by champions whom the highest literary ambition might be proud to meet, yet dread to encounter. Besides the periodical publications, especially the British Critic for January, February, and April, 1823, the author was opposed by Bishop Burgess in the Postcript to his vindication of 1 John, v.7., 8vo. Lond., 1823; by the Rev. J. J. Conybeare, in his Examination of certain arguments in Palæoromaica, 8vo. Oxford, 1823; by Dr. Falconer, in his Second Part of the Case of Eusebius, Svo., 1823; and by the Rev. W. G. Broughton, in his Examination of the Hypothesis advanced in a recent publication, entitled Palaeoromaica, 8vo. London, 1823.

**The anonymous author, however, undaunted by this warlike array marshalled against him, boldly entered the lists in defiance of his formidable opponents, and replied in A Supplement to Paleoromaica, with Remarks on the Strictures made on that work by the Bishop of St. David's, the Rev. J. J. Conybeare, the British Critic; also by the Rev. W. G. Broughton, and by Dr. Falconer; 8vo. London, 1824. Of this production the "Second Postcript," pp. 104-121, is employed in combating the objections which Mr. Broughton had advanced against the Palæoromaic theory; and the publication at the head of this article is a reply to the just mentioned "Second Postcript." Of which Reply we shall now proceed to give a short analysis..

Every reader of the Supplement to Palæoromaica must perceive, that the learned author attempts no regular defence of his paradoxical theory, but contents himself with skirmishing around the out-posts of his adversaries, and, attacking a few detached corps, the overthrow of which would scarcely weaken

F

the main army. This is obviously the case in his remarks on Mr. Broughton's Examination of the Palaeoromaic Hypothesis. This writer has with great judgment exposed the in superable difficulties of that hypothesis, and his refutation, without the parade of learning, yet so solid, is well adapted to produce a powerful effect upon the public. It therefore behoved the anonymous author to meet the objections of such an opponent fairly and candidly; but instead of this he merely carps at particular passages, alleging, that Mr. Broughton has given an unfavourable picture of the Hebrew language, and spoken of its defects as adapting it to the purposes of Providence; that he has described the Jews as willing to be deceived in questions relating to their sacred books;—and that he represents the Apostles as occasionally employing a Greek word in a signification which no native Greek would have recognised.

This is the sum of the imputations which the author of Palæoromaica endeavours to cast upon Mr. Broughton's Examination; and, allowing them to be fully established, it is not easy to see how the cause of Palæoromaica would thereby be supported. If any of the adversaries of this cause have been betrayed into admissions and observations not admissible in themselves, this circumstance cannot in any degree shake those direct and independent arguments, by which the originality of the present Greek text of the New Testament is defended. Mr. B., however, repels the charges preferred against him, and, in our opinion, vindicates himself in a very satisfactory manner.

Though the author of the Supplement to Palæoromaica does not condescend to reply to the principal arguments by which its futility is exposed, there are, as before observed, a few passages besides in Mr. Broughton's performance, at which he carps with evident feelings of self-complacency. The former objections are merely personal; the latter alone affect the general question; but they are of such a nature as leave the Examiner's objections in their full force. This is conclusively established by Mr. B.; but as it seems unnecessary to enter minutely into the subject, we shall only cite a specimen of the able manner in which he combats the author of Palæoromaica.

"I said, and I repeat, that the authority of the New Testament is attacked in Palæoromaica, and that it must be weakened in every mind which carries these principles to their natural limits. It was this consideration which, as the work was of some pretensions, occasioned my anxiety to shew to those for whom I professed to write, that the hypothesis which it promulgates is built on nothing firm.' In reply to this the author of the Supplement says, that persons of this class are

in very little danger of being led astray,' because such persons care nothing for philological questions, nor whether St. Mark wrote Greek or Latin.' This is in perfect correspondence with the sophistical tendency of the entire work. The persons alluded to take no direct part in philological discussions, for which they do not possess the necessary acquirements, or the necessary leisure: but that they care nothing for them is no less certainly untrue. Christians in general may not be very nearly interested in the mere abstract question, whether the Apostles wrote in Greek, or Latin, or Hebrew, provided they have an adequate assurance that the original, in whatever language, is still in being; and such an assurance cannot generally rest upon their own researches, so much as upon the confidence which they repose in the decisions of those who are qualified by their studies, and called by their profession, to examine such questions. Although, therefore, the persons of whom we are speaking may take no actual part in the conduct of such inquiries, yet in the results of them` they are, and have a right to be, most deeply interested. No mistake can be greater than to suppose that the conclusions of critics, upon even the most abstruse points, terminate with their own class; they have an influence upon public opinion, wherever men reason or think at all, and arrive, after numberless reflections, within the sphere of those who are placed even at the remotest distance from the actual field of inquiry. The impie ties of Hobbes, and the subtile insinuations of Shaftesbury, were called speculative reasonings in their own age, and were considered to be comparatively harmless, because, from their refinement and abstraction, it was supposed their influence would be confined to the small number of persons who have minds fitted for such inquiries. But we have discovered the groundlessness of this expectation, and have felt the consequences of the mistake, seeing, as we have done, the principles of these mischievous writers disseminated in every possible shape, and rendered accessible to the capacities of every class of readers. Whether the author of Palaeoromaica intends it or no, he may be assured that, if the truth of his hypothesis were once conceded, it would not long be suffered to remain a dead letter. The restless activity of Deism would speedily be awakened to the advantage; ' philological questions' would quickly be made familiar to readers of every class; and the different degrees of authority due to an original writing, and to a translation of which the original has perished, would be blazoned forth by the numberless purveyors of irreligion, who at once endanger and disgrace a Christian country." (pp. 59-61.)

The tendency of the Palæoromaic speculations to subvert the foundation of our faith, cannot for a moment be doubted. No artifice can disguise the danger of the hypothesis; and it is this circumstance, more than any intrinsic value, which has stirred up a host of adversaries. Had it been applied to any other book, it would have been received by scholars with a smile, or with contempt; but when applied to the New Testa

ment, that sacred and inestimable treasure, pious zeal was awakened to guard it from the mischief of such rash disquir sitions. Those learned men, therefore, are well deserving of the thanks of the public, who have upon this occasion stood forth in defence of the truth, and have ably and successfully refuted the presumptuous theory of the Palaeoromaica.

The Christian Sabbath; or an Inquiry into the Religious Obligation of keeping holy one day in seven, By the Rev. GEORGE HOLDEN, A. M. 8vo. Pp. 536. 12s. London, Rivingtons. 1825.

THE History of the Sabbath has always appeared to us very simple, solemn, and edifying. And such, we believe, it will appear to all who are not "spoiled by philosophy and vain deceit." For vain and deceitful, let us be permitted without offence to remark, is moral philosophy; and often and much have we lamented that the great master of it in our day should have been induced to apply his acute and vigorous understanding to its promotion-and have been applauded for doing so. By moral philosophy we mean that which seeks some foundation of duty independent of the word of God, and not always recognizing His revealed will; at least, not recognizing it as the one undisputed and indisputable law. Hence arises a new rule of duty our conduct is to proceed upon another principle-a beautiful principle perhaps, a powerful and exalted one; but defective in its authority, and imperfect both in its compass and its sanctions. One striking fault in it appears when it is considered with regard to positive institutions. With these moral philosophy has little or no concern. A person, indeed, may argue, (and probably will do so, if, as frequently happens, his theory is formed upon Scripture) that such institutions are highly useful, if not absolutely requisite, for the preservation of true religion, particularly of that part of religion which consists in devotion. But to others of a more contemplative turn, such ordinances are exceeding distasteful; they fetter the imagination, they chill the feelings, they reduce to one common level the man of ardent affections, and the dull insensate drudge, whose heart has never beat at the call of gratitude or love. Now, who, upon the principles of moral philosophy, shall subject all the fine feelings of enthusiasm to the rules necessary for the stated observance of external ordinances? Who shall demon