to believe in the miracles both of the Old and the New Testament!

I have, my dear friend, been writing on, day by day, and only for a very short period each time, for my health has been, and continues much worse than usual. I fear, therefore, that you will find it difficult to collect any clear and distinct general notion from the rambling thoughts which I have already consigned to this letter; as my strength does not allow me to recast it, and reduce what I have said into one clear and distinct view, I must take the liberty of sending to you this rather loose collection of notes, requesting your attentive consideration of them individually. It is of great importance to ascertain whether these objections to some deeply rooted notions which exist among all denominations of Christians are as valid as I think, or not. [The only method by which we can arrive at a perfect knowledge of the object of Providence in the unquestionably great work which began with our era, and has uninterruptedly proceeded up to the moment when, in consequence of the moral impulse then given to a great portion of mankind, I am anxiously exerting myself on the subject of Christianity,-the only way to complete the Reformation which Luther proclaimed, is to remove, one by one, every false notion which we may find connected with the profession of the gospel.] While employed in the removal of individual errors, we should be upon our guard against the usual bugbear,' where shall we stop?'-'what will be left?' When we shall have removed what is positively not Christianity, then, and not till then, shall we be able to perceive what true Christianity is.

Ever, with sincere affection,
Your friend and brother,

J. BLANCO WHITE.

THE REV. JAMES MARTINEAU.

NOTES,

&c.

NOTES TO LECTURE I.

NOTE 1. "More than Clement and Barnabas, who are excluded."

Page 7.

WITHOUT entering upon the intricate question respecting the origin of the first records of Christianity, and the relation of apocryphal to canonical writings, it may be safely affirmed, that no one, at all acquainted with the discussions to which they have led, can maintain the broad distinction,-the distinction between inspiration and imposture,-commonly conceived to separate the received from the rejected books. The external arguments usually adduced, to support the authority of our present sacred writings, are reducible to two: the simple antiquity of the books, attested by quotations from them, and references to them, in ecclesiastical authors of the third and second centuries and the ascription of authority exclusively to them, by the writers and the Catholic churches of the same period. The former of these evidences may certainly be claimed for more than one of the apocryphal books: for Epiphanius supposes "the Gospel of Cerinthus," and Jerome "the Gospel according to the Egyptians," to be of the number of those alluded to by Luke in the preamble to his Gospel. And the latter of these arguments, whatever weight it may have for the received Scriptures, will not be held conclusive against the books now rejected and lost, by those who consider, on what principles the church writers awarded their preference to certain works, and their reproaches to others. Instead of dissenting from doctrines because contained in apocryphal books, they threw away books as apocryphal, because they contained obnoxious doctrine. Every thing which opposed the views of the orthodox or dominant party, was to be put down; and the use of a Gospel by an heretical (i. e., unsuccessful) sect was sufficient reason for reviling and rejecting it. For an admirable estimate of the testimony of "the Fathers," respecting points of this kind, see "Second Travels of an Irish Gentleman in Search of a Religion," by Rev. J. Blanco White, vol. I., chap vii.

Note 2. "By the murmurs and restlessness of imbecile rage."- Page 8. Luke vi. 6-11. The account of this transaction by Matthew and Mark has a much less vivid impress of truth and nature: see Matt. xii. 9-14; Mark iii. 1-6. If the enemies of Christ entertained a desire to entrap him, by taking advantage of a Sabbath cure, it is surely not likely that they would themselves broach the subject (as Matthew represents), and put him on his guard, by directly asking his opinion about the lawfulness of healing on the Sabbath. Luke's account, which exhibits our Lord, as himself observing their silent curiosity on the subject, and starting the disputed question in a form which could not but perplex them, is more probable. See Schleiermacher's Critical Essay on the Gospel of St. Luke, in loc.

Note 3. "From the different positions of the observers.”—Page 9. The calling of the first Apostles (Andrew, Peter; James, and John) is recorded in the following passages of the several Evangelists: Matt. iv. 18-22; Mark i. 16-20; Luke v. 10, 11; John i. 37-end. In comparing these accounts, several discrepances present themselves, with respect to both the place and the order of the transactions.

In Matthew, Mark, and Luke, the scene is by the Lake of Galilee.

In John, the scene is in Judæa: the calls in Galilee being, according to this Evangelist, those of Philip and Nathanael, who are not mentioned in the other Gospels.

Matthew and Mark represent the two pairs of brothers as successively called; first Andrew and Peter; then, after a short interval, James and John. Luke makes no mention of Andrew, and represents the others as called simultaneously.

John represents Andrew as called with himself (for the nameless one can be no other); and Peter as subsequently called through the instrumentality of his brother Andrew. Of James he is silent. It is obvious that this account is entitled to the greatest degree of respect.

The casting of the demons into the swine is narrated in Matt. viii. 28–34; Mark v. 1-20; Luke viii. 26-39.

According to Matthew, two demoniacs were cured; according to Mark and Luke, only one. Paulus and Schleiermacher suppose that the notion of plurality was derived from the "Legion" of demons, and the plural form into which this fancy of the maniac threw the dialogue. The silence of Matthew respecting the number of demons renders highly probable this explanation of his number of men.

According to Luke, a considerable delay ensued between Christ's command that the cure should take place, and its actual occurrence; Matthew conveys the idea that the cure followed instantly on the command.

Matthew's narrative implies, that our Lord explicitly sanctioned the belief of a positive transference of demons from the maniacs to the swine, and himself claimed in this event a two-fold miracle; first, the cure of the maniac;

then, the maddening of the swine. Luke relieves us from the anxieties of the latter half of this pretension; in his narrative, Jesus himself asserts no other miracle than the simple cure: all the rest may be an unauthorized inference of the bystanders, suggested by a loss of some portion or the whole of the herd, simultaneously with the restoration of the madman. If indeed the man had implored Christ to send the evil spirits into the swine, and the destruction of the animals had instantly followed, the coincidence would perhaps have been too remarkable to lie within the probable range of natural causes. But it does not appear that the man preferred any such request. It is indeed said (Luke viii. 32,) "they (i. e. the devils) besought him, that he would suffer them to enter into them" (the swine); but that these words describe a petition from the lips of the man, is an assumption not only unauthorized, but plainly discouraged by the whole context. Wherever the man takes part in the dialogue, (v. 28—30,) he is spoken of and he speaks of himself, in his own proper person, in the singular number; e. g. " he saw Jesus;" "he cried out ;" "what have I to do with thee," "I beseech thee, torment me not;"" he said, 'Legion."" The writer, by abandoning this form of expression in v. 31, 32, indicates that he is no longer describing any speech of the maniac; but a petition, which he supposes the demons themselves to convey to their vanquisher; and which, passing between superhuman spirits and the mind of Christ, would be necessarily secret, imperceptible to the senses of bystanders, and discoverable only by inference from the incident that followed. I admit, that in Luke iv. 33, 34, we have an instance, in which a maniac personates the evil spirits supposed to possess his body; but such personation, however natural in the frenzied speech of the lunatic, appears inadmissible in the sober narrative of the historian.

Note 4. "For instruction in righteousness."—Page 15.

The remark on the translation of this celebrated verse is not intended to impugn the grammatical correctness of the Common Version. If indeed the authority of the Syriac, Vulgate, and Arabic versions, and of several early ecclesiastical writers were sufficient to justify the rejection of the kai which separates Θεόπνευστος and ὠφέλιμος, the common rendering would be inadmissible. But since by the general suffrage of manuscripts we must decide on the retention of the particle, the two translations are critically on a par; and our preference of the one to the other must be determined by considerations purely exegetical. The most plausible objection to the rendering, which for reasons that were satisfactory to Grotius, Baxter, and others, I have adopted, is this-that the word "also" appears to have no force in the passage, which would indeed be improved, rather than injured, by its omission. The function of this little word is to note the introduction of some additional idea: and if we conceive the Apostle to say, that "all divinely inspired scripture is also (i. e. in addition to its quality of inspiration) profitable," &c., his sentiment assumes the tameness of a truism or an anticlimax. Paul

would hardly think it worth his while to announce respecting any writings, that they are not only from God, but, moreover, useful.

This objection (which it is surprising that orthodox commentators have not more frequently urged) appears to me conclusive against any view of the passage, which represents the Apostle, in his description of certain sacred books, as enumerating their excellencies in this order: 1st, their Divinity; 2nd, their utility.-Yet this view has been taken, I believe, by all who have adopted the altered translation. By embracing within our consideration the 13th, 14th, and 15th verses, a different distribution of the author's sentiments at once presents itself: v. 13.

I. He speaks of certain selfish impostors, who will do mischief by misleading the ignorant from the simplicity of the Christian faith.

II. With the credulity of these victims of deception, he contrasts the stability of Timothy's mind, well prepared against such seduction;

1. By the knowledge that Paul himself, the greatest living missionary of Christ, had been his instructor: v. 14.

2. By his early familiarity with such of the Hebrew scriptures, as were able to prepare him wisely for the religion of the Gospel,-to light his path of entrance into the peace and security of Christianity: v. 15.

Then having mentioned the importance of these writings to the personal faith of Timothy, as an individual, Paul proceeds (v. 16,) to affirm their additional importance to the public efficiency of his pupil, as a professed teacher of the Gospel among the Jews: and this I conceive to be the idea introduced by the word also: all divinely inspired scriptures are useful, not only as supports of your own faith, but also as instruments for convincing others. The order, therefore, in which the qualities of the sacred books alluded to are enumerated, is not, 1st, their Divinity; 2ndly, their utility: but, 1st, their usefulness to the individual disciple; 2ndly, their usefulness to the public instructor.

If then the amended translation truly expresses the meaning of the Apostle, he attempts to decide nothing respecting what books are divinely inspired; but simply points out the uses to which any books, shown to be inspired, may be applied. It is true that he could not have written the passage, if he had not held, that there were some writings for which this character might he claimed: and if we proceed to determine by conjecture, what writings were in his thoughts, we cannot be at any loss for probabilities to guide us. The only parts of the Hebrew scriptures to which Paul's description applies,—the only parts which could preserve in Timothy, and create in others, a belief that Jesus was the Messiah-were obviously those which had supported the expectation of a Messiah, viz., the prophetical books. These writings constituted the great store-house of arguments, to which the missionaries of the Gospel had recourse in reasoning with Jews: and the instances are very few in which appeal is made, by Christ or his Apostles, to any other portion of the Old Testament, except the Book of Psalms. Historical facts are indeed alluded