for the passages are divided into eight classes or divisions, namely:

"Class I. Interpolated and corrupted passages.

"Class II. Passages relating to Christ, which have been mistranslated.

" Class III. Passages relating to God, which have been incorrectly applied to Christ.

"Class IV. Passages that might be considered as referring to the doctrine of the Trinity, supposing it capable of proof and proved, but which in themselves present no appearance of any proof or intimation of it.

"Of Prayer to Christ.

"On the Pre-existence of Christ.

"Class V. Passages relating to the divine authority of Christ as the minister of God, to the manifestation of divine power in his miracles and in the establishment of Christianity, and to Christianity itself, spoken of under the name of Christ, and considered as a promulgation of the laws of God's moral government,-which have been misinterpreted as proving that Christ himself is God.

"Class VI. Passages misinterpreted through inattention to the peculiar characteristics of the modes of expression in the New Testament.

"Class VII. Passages, in the senses assigned to which, not merely the fundamental Rule of Interpretation, explained in Section VIII., is violated, but the most obvious and indisputable Characteristics of Language are disregarded.

"Class VIII. The Introduction of St. John's Gospel."-Contents, pp. xxxviii. xxxix.

We regret that we have only space for one or two of the shortest specimens: but our regret is lessened by the consideration, that Mr. Norton's interpretations, bold and extraordinary as they sometimes are, present almost nothing of novelty, almost nothing, that has not been said and refuted again and again. He thus translates and explains the striking and remakable passage,

"John, viii. 52, 53, 56-58. The Jews said to Jesus; Now we know that thou art a madman; Abraham died and the prophets; and thou sayest, If a man obey my words, he shall never taste of death. Art thou greater than our father Abraham, who died? And the prophets

Whom dost thou make thyself? Jesus answered, .

Your

died. father, Abraham, earnestly desired to see my day, and he saw it, and rejoiced. Then the Jews said to him, thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? Jesus said to them, I tell you in truth, before Abraham existed, I was he.'

"The rendering of the common version, Before Abraham was, I am,' is without meaning. "-p. 175.

E," "I am," is without meaning: Epì, "I was he," is the summit of sound sense and accurate philology!

Again, says Mr. Norton, at page 180,

"I have descended from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me;' that is, I, who bring this religion from heaven, have no other purpose but to perform the will of God."-p. 180.

Once more.

"There is a passage thus rendered in the common version: What and if ye shall see the Son of Man ascend up where he was before.' It has been thought to refer to his ascension to heaven, and to imply that he existed in heaven before his appearance on earth.'

-p. 181. Not at all:-but we will not affront the understanding of our readers with more of Mr. Norton's particular expositions. They are only valuable as showing the length to which laxity and licentiousness of interpretation can be carried. Our American author goes from passage to passage and sentence to sentence almost like a back-woodsman in his own country, here lopping the branches, here laying his axe to the root. Does a passage favour the Trinitarian scheme of Christianity? It is misinterpreted. Is it difficult to make out the fault of interpretation? It has been mistranslated. Is the translation unassailable? It has been interpolated. Does interpolation seem impossible? At any rate, then, whatever manuscripts and authorities may testify to the contrary, it has been altered and corrupted, in the process of time, and by the carelessness of transcribers. Where there are eight classes of error, it is very hard if a place cannot be found, and a little ingenuity cannot manage to reduce it under one or another. Well, therefore, after darkening the whole sense of the Gospel by words without knowledge, may Mr. Norton thus end the investigation by singing his pæan, and erecting his trophy, albeit that to other eyes his antagonists may still seem in possession of the field.

"It has been contended by some modern German divines, who appear themselves to regard Christ merely as a human teacher, that he was believed or represented by his Apostles, if not by himself, to have been a pre-existent being, the Logos of God. They appeal, of course, to some of the same passages which are brought forward by Trinitarians and others in support of this doctrine, and in proof of the deity of Christ in which it is implied. But we may here make the general remark, that if the Apostles had regarded their master as an incarnation of a great pre-existent spirit, far superior to man, they would not have left us to gather their belief from a doubtful interpretation of a few scattered passages. No fact concerning him, personally, would have been put forward in their writings with more prominence and distinctness. None would have been oftener brought into notice. None would have more strongly affected their imaginations and feelings. None would have been adapted more to affect their disciples. St. Matthew would not

have written an account of his Master, as it must be conceded that he has, without any where expressly declaring the fact. The Apostles would have left us in as little doubt concerning their belief of it, as concerning their belief of his crucifixion and resurrection."-pp. 184, 185.

Besides the sections already enumerated there is a separate discussion of the doctrine of the Aoyos: with an appendix, on which we have no room for remark, relating to "the expectations of the Apostles concerning the visible return of their Master to earth." The closing chapter is thus commenced.

"In concluding this argument, I wish to make a few remarks concerning those general views of religion, that I have directly or indirectly expressed, and which are usually connected with the opinions I have maintained. In doing so I shall drop the singular pronoun, and blend myself with those, whoever they may be, whose sentiments correspond with my own. I speak in the name of no party; I am responsible for no opinions which I do not express; and no man is responsible for mine; but it would be false modesty, or presumption, to regard myself as standing alone.

"We, then, who reject the whole system which among Protestants has been denominated Orthodoxy,' as a system of the most pernicious errors, are charged by its defenders with depriving Christianity of all its value, with contemning all its peculiar doctrines, with rejecting all but What is it, then, that we believe; and what is it that our opponents believe?

its name.

66

Christianity, WE BELIEVE, has taught men to know God, and has revealed him as the Father of his creatures. It has made known his infinite perfections, his providence, and his moral government. It has directed us to look up to Him as the Being, on whom we and all things are entirely dependent, and to look up to Him with perfect confidence and love. It has made known to us that we are to live for ever; it has brought life and immortality to light. Man was a creature of this earth, and it has raised him to a far nobler rank, and taught him to regard himself as an immortal being, the child of God. It calls the sinner to reformation and hope. It affords to virtue the highest possible sanctions. It gives to sorrow its best, and often its only consolation. It presents us, in the life of our great Master, with an example of that moral perfection, which is to be the constant object of our exertions. It has established the truths which it teaches, upon evidence the most satisfactory. It is a most glorious display of the benevolence of the Deity, and of his care for the beings of this earth. It has lifted the veil which separated God from his creatures, and this life from eternity. "But all this seems as NOTHING; unless it also teach, that there are three persons who constitute the one God; or at least that there is some threefold distinction, we know not what, in the Divinity; that one of these persons or distinctions was united in a most incomprehensible manner to the human nature of Christ, so that the sufferings of the latter

were the sufferings of the former; and that it is only through these sufferings of the Son of God, that we may hope for the mercy of his Father. The religion of joy and consolation will, it is contended, lose its value, unless it announce to us, that we are created under the wrath and curse of God; that it is impossible for us to perform his will, unless our moral natures be created anew; and that this is a favour denied to far the greater part of men, who are required to perform what he has made it morally impossible they should perform, with the most unrelenting rigour, and under penalty of the most terrible and everlasting torments. Such doctrines as these are represented as the peculiar doctrines of Christianity, those from which it derives its value; and our opponents appear to think, that if nothing better was to be effected than to make God known to men, to reveal to them his paternal character, to bring life and immortality to light, and to furnish the highest motives to virtue, it was not worth while for the Deity to interpose in a special manner to effect purposes so unimportant."-pp. 289-291.

These copious extracts may almost afford to our readers a fulllength picture of modern Unitarianism in America—a picture to the fairness at least of which no objection can be urged, as we have not ourselves meddled either with the drawing or the colouring. It is now, however, time to observe, that it will be found, upon accurate inspection, a picture teeming throughout with imperfections and deformities, and conveying nothing like an adequate delineation of the original which it pretends to repre

sent.

Of the three parts, into which, as we have already said, Mr. Norton's view of Christianity may be divided, we shall not deal with the two latter at any length. The historical portion of the subject has lately been discussed in England with great learning and ability; and we therefore feel it to be quite unnecessary to enter upon a detailed refutation of Mr. Norton's errors, partly, because the work has been already done better than we could hope to do it; and partly, because, in the proper performance of the undertaking, we should be compelled to write, or quote, not an article but a volume; not a volume but a library. We need not recur to Bishop Horsley's demolition of the pseudo-theology of Dr. Priestley; although Mr. Nortou, we perceive, still clings with a perverse and mistaken partiality to the " History of early Opinions." Still less need we go back to earlier writings: it is enough to refer all who have at heart the support and confirmation of the orthodox faith, to the erudite labours of Dr. Burton, Mr. Faber's valuable work, "The Apostolicity of Trinitarianism," which has already come under review in this publication, and met with due examination and merited praise; the translation of some Epistles of the Fathers, lately put forth by Mr. Temple Chevallier; and a number of other productions, which set the

question of primitive Christianity entirely at rest. Or, if the "bane and antidote are to come both before us" from the same quarter of the globe, we may mention Professor Stuart's admirable Letters to Dr. Channing; and also the Remains of the Rev. Charles Henry Wharton, D.D., lately edited, with a memoir of his life, by the excellent and eloquent Bishop Doane. As this work may be new to the generality of our readers, they will thank us for giving some extracts on the present topics of the Unitarian controversy, from "A short and candid Inquiry into the Proofs of Christ's Divinity;" although it was originally published, we believe, so far back as the year 1791.

"A very slight acquaintance," says Dr. Wharton, "with ecclesiastical antiquity must convince us that the doctrine of Christ's divinity prevailed in the Christian Church as far back as we can trace the history of her tenets. It must, indeed, be acknowledged, that in the age immediately succeeding that of the Apostles, the materials for Church history are scanty and obscure. The few fragments of Hegesippus preserved by Eusebius are almost the only authentic monuments of a Christian historian which have reached us. But no sooner were regular histories written to record the doctrines and dissensions of Christians, than this primitive tenet appears firmly established and adopted by a vast majority in the Church.

6

6

"It has been already observed, that the very first proselytes to Christianity, regarded Jesus Christ as an object of their worship; and we know from the writings of the Apostles, that they acted conformably to this belief. St. Paul, writing to the Romans, speaks of the absolute necessity of confessing the Lord Jesus; a little after, he says, Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.' 'How then,' continues he, shall they call on him in whom they have not believed?' Here the Apostle plainly intimates the necessity of calling on the Lord Jesus, or in other words of paying religious worship to his name. And accordingly we find Stephen, in the agonies of death, calling upon the Lord Jesus, whom he saw standing at the right hand of God, and praying him to receive his spirit.' It has been already observed that no history exists, to record the religious practices of the first Christians, subsequent to the Apostolic Epistles, and the writings of St. John, in which this doctrine of Christ's divinity appears clearly announced. We may gather, however, from the conduct of the inhabitants of the heavenly Jerusalem, revealed to this Apostle, and recorded by his own pen, what worship was paid to Christ by the Christian Church upon earth. In the most august representation of celestial objects with which mortal man has been ever favoured, this beloved disciple saw the worship of his Master blended with that of the most High God. After this,' says he, I beheld, and lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations and kindreds, and people and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, and cried with a loud voice, Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb.'