of it is found in the margin of some ancient manuscripts*. But a plain and obvious meaning may be assigned to our Lord's expressions, without having recourse to conjecture or criticism. Profane and blasphemous language had already been decisively condemned in the Decalogue, in the Sermon on the Mount, and in the passage now before us. But our Lord intended to carry his instructions farther. "I say unto you-(an expression which he constantly used, when he would urge the doctrines of his religion beyond those of former revelations) I say unto you that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment." He does not absolutely say that men shall be condemned for every light and thoughtless expression they may have uttered, but that they shall be called upon to account for it. In that great and impartial judgment nothing will be omitted which can tend to throw a true light on the character and principles of men. Our Saviour's precept, then, has a wide and general application. It is an enlargement and correction of the Jewish law on a point of great practical importance; and it was clearly intended as a perpetual restraint upon the language and conversation of all his followers, whether in public or private life. Nor is such an injunction beneath the dignity of the Gospel. For Schleusner thus explains the text. "Sermones inanes, incanti, et impii; quibus non solum non aliorum felicitati et virtuti consulitur, sed quæ alios studio impietatis incendunt, et hoc modo miseros reddunt. Unde in codicibus mongov legitur loco agyov, e glossemate." Griesbach says that πονηρον is found instead of agyo in ten manuscripts; but as he has only specified one of them which is commonly ascribed to the thirteenth century, he did not perhaps place much confidence in their readings. In three manuscripts agyon is omitted without the substitution of πονηρον. every sentiment we utter is not only a declaration of our own feeling and opinion, but has, or is intended to have, some influence on the minds of others. Words which are spoken with little or no consideration, may produce more important consequences than we can possibly anticipate. They may tend to establish, or to undermine the virtue of others; to correct their sentiments, or to delude them. Well, therefore, might the government of the tongue excite the special attention, and call forth the admonitions of a Divine teacher. It is, indeed, highly necessary that we should have express and positive instruction on this point from the highest authority, since it is a subject of which many professed Christians appear to have formed the most erroneous conceptions. All persons, indeed, who have any sense of propriety, will acknowledge that our language, as well as our sentiments, ought to be decorous and chaste. But some are inclined to think that their ordinary discourse need only be kept within the bounds of decency; and that if it be not absolutely false, licentious, or profane, there can be nothing in it offensive to God, or injurious to mankind. Such opinions are di. rectly confuted by our Saviour's language in my text, and by many other explicit declarations of Holy Writ. "I am utterly purposed," says the Psalmist," that my mouth shall not offend *;" clearly implying that such a resolution is an essential duty of religion. "The wicked is snared by the transgression of his lips"-" but the tongue of the wise is health †.” man offend not in tongue," says St. James," he is a perfect mant;" and St. Paul admonishes us to abstain from " foolish talking and jesting, which are not convenient §;" * Ps. xvii. 3. James iii, 2. "If any + Prov. xii. 15. 18. § Ephes. v. 4. not consistent with our duty either towards God or man. As all the precepts of the Gospel are calculated to increase the happiness of social life, and to assist us in its lawful occupations, we cannot imagine that this admonition was designed to encourage an austere and gloomy spirit, or to check the freedom of innocent conversation. Neither can it be supposed that the grave and liberal discussion of momentous questions, whether in religion, morals, politics, law, or science, is here discountenanced or forbidden. It is manifestly essential for the investigation of truth, and the welfare of society, that such topics should be temperately discussed, and not a syllable cau be found in the Sacred Volume which condemns the full exercise of the human understanding on sub. jects within its comprehension. But still the precept of my text applies, in a certain degree, to all such cases, and, indeed, to every topic of discourse. It teaches us that we are bound, as disciples of Christ, to consider the general interests of society, as well as our own character, in all we utter or publish to the world. This sacred obligation is shamefully violated in the daily practice of the world. Men of ingenious and philosophical minds are frequently disposed to shew their ability, by maintaining some doctrine or position which they know to be dangerous and absurd. This is continually done without any serious intention of deceiving others, or of propagating opinions of loose and immoral tendency. But in the course of such arguments many assertions must be made, and many principles laid down, which cannot bear examination; and which, if carried into practice, must lead to fatal consequences. Here, then, the strict rule of Christian integrity is transgressed. It is not enough to say that the party who maintains such an argument is perfectly aware of its falsehood, and means only to display his talents. He must consider that to detect ingenious sophistry is not within the power of ordinary minds. Some few may perceive the fallacy of his reasonings, but multitudes will acquiesce in their truth. Thus a wide field is laid open for the propagation of error. Persons of moderate education, and but little accustomed to reflection, will readily imbibe opinions which they have heard ingeniously defended; and for which they can produce, as they imagine, the authority of distinguished characters. If they had questioned such principles before, they now embrace them with implicit confidence; recommend them to others as maxims of substantial wisdom; and endeavour, as far as possible, to carry them into the practice of life. Every man of common sense and observation must have seen this case exemplified. Surely, then, he must admit, that as Christians, we are, and ought to be, responsible, not only for the expressions we actually use, but for their general tendency and spirit, and for all the consequences which may fairly be deduced from them. We cannot, indeed, be held culpable for the misapplication of our words by perverse or ignorant men. But it is our solemn duty to take heed that our language on every subject, and upon all occasions, be chaste, sober, and ingenuous; that there be nothing in it which admits of a dangerous construction; nothing which can tend to mislead or perplex others, who have not perhaps the same means of information as ourselves. Delinquency, in this respect, we may be assured, can never be justified in the sight of God. However it may tend, as it undoubtedly sometimes does, to promote objects of temporal ambition, and to display our wit, acuteness, eloquence, and argumentation, yet such pleas will never be admitted by the Eternal Judge. They are vain, delusive, impious. They have respect to the praise of men, not to the honour of God; and will never be able to annul that solemn admonition of the Divine Word," as a madman that casteth fire-brands, arrows, and death, so is he that deceiveth his neighbour, and saith, am not I in sport * ?” If this reasoning hold good with regard to the graver and more important subjects of human enquiry, and even to ordinary conversation on matters of inferior moment, much more must it apply when the honour of Almighty God is implicated. If religion be the subject of discourse or argument, great, indeed, is the necessity of guarding our expressions, that we may never be instrumental to any perversion or misapprehension of divine truth. In religion, indeed, as in other subjects, variety of opinion must be expected to prevail. But although men may differ in minute points of controversy, or even in the doctrines of the Christian covenant, nothing can excuse them for departing, in any instance, from that grave and reverential language which the subject imperiously demands. He who, by speaking loosely and disrespectfully of religion, would lessen its influence on the minds of others, is the bitterest enemy of his fellow creatures, and an audacious contemner of his God. He is not satisfied with disturbing the temporal peace and happiness of society, but carries his malignity beyond the grave, endeavouring to deprive his fellow-creatures of that present consolation and future glory which are provided for them by divine mercy, through the sacrifice and mediation of Christ. Among of fences of this nature none, perhaps, is more destructive in its consequences, than to place doubts and objections on religious subjects in a strong light, while the explanation * Prov. xxvi. 18, 19. of the difficulty is entirely omitted. Thus the minds of inexperienced persons are not only left in suspense on matters most important to their everlasting welfare, but are even prejudiced against the truth. An impression is made which the best instructor may, perhaps, be unable to efface, and which a frequent intercourse with irreligious men will soon convert into absolute infidelity. For we may observe, that the gene. rality of unbelievers are such, not from determined hostility to the Gospel, but from want of information on religious subjects, and from the influence of sensual habits.They have never thought seriously upon the truth or importance of religion, but they have freely indulged in all the vices of the age. To the one they are perfectly indifferent, to the other fervently attached. Easily, therefore, do they yield to the weakest arguments or insinuations against religion, and abandon themselves, at once, to the most absurd and fatal of all delusions, which involves the everlasting misery of soul and body. Any language, or sentiment, which tends to encourage or confirm this propensity must be highly criminal in the sight of God, and will, doubtless, be reckoned among those “idle words" of which an account will be required in the dreadful day of retribution. To palliate wickedness and error by the misapplication of common terms, is another grievous and prevalent offence against the precept of the text. This practice is not only sanctioned by the world, but often commended as the certain test of a noble, generous, and charitable heart. It is, however, a direct trausgression against the letter and spirit of the Christian law, and produces a most pernicious influence on the morals and opinions of the age. When an absolute dereliction of all real principle is called liberality of sentiment; when a It behoves us, indeed, seriously to reflect that we are not only commanded by the laws of God to ab. stain from loose, profane, and intemperate expressions, but the Gospel requires that we should endeavour, as far as possible, to render our conversation profitable to ourselves and others, This may always be done, by a judicious man, without any violation of true courtesy, or any affected sanctity of manner. They, indeed, who are conspicuous for learning, ability, and rank, are enabled to perform essential service to society in this respect. It is continually in their power to correct false opinions and erroneous statements, and to give a more just direction to the public mind. But every member of the Christian fold may perform the same duty to a certain extent. All may be careful that their language be pure and innocent. All may evince their zeal to condemn and defeat those flagitious attempts on the faith and morals of the community, by which the present age has been disgraced. In various degrees, and on different occasions, all may con tribute, by the general sentiments they promulge, to the suppression of wickedness and vice, and the maintenance of true religion and virtue. Thus will they not only escape the punishment which shall be awarded to "idle words," but will, doubtless, "lay up for themselves a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, shall give them in the last day." Let all, then, who look forward to eternal life, through the atonement and intercession of our blessed Redeemer, be careful to observe his awful admonition delivered in the text. Let them not only discard all profane, immoral, and offensive language, but seriously consider the tendency of every sentiment and expression, and the effect which it is likely to produce on others. The power of speech is a gift of great dignity and value, inferior only to reason itself. As intellect was granted to us not merely for the prosecution of secular affairs, but for the apprehension of divine truth, and the improvement of it to the purpose of everlasting happiness; so, doubtless, was speech designed as a special instrument of ascribing to the Lord, the honour due unto his name. To this end we are bound to apply it, directly or indirectly, not only on public occasions, but in our daily intercourse with mankind. Our conversation must always be such as becometh the Gospel of Christ. We must be able hereafter to affirm of our language, as well as of our deeds, that in "simplicity and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom, but by the grace of God, we have had our conversation in the world." T. L. S. SCRIPTURE CRITICISM. THE HEAVENLY WITNESSES NOT AUTHENTIC. To the Editor of the Remembrancer. omissions in particular the author Sir, BEFORE I proceed to offer any opinion of the manner in which the passage of the heavenly witnesses first found its way into a few of the Latin manuscripts, it may not be absurd to notice the futility of those argu. ments which are usually advanced to account for its absence in the vast multitude of Greek, Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Æthiopic, and Arabic manuscripts. In the volume of learned and valuable tracts by the Bishop of St. David's, there is given from Ittigius a long and important extract, from which it should seem that Videlius, Wittichius, as well as Ittigius himself were severally of opinion, that the text in question first began to be expunged and omitted, not by the Arians, but by the followers of Artemon; and this they appear to assert on no other ground than because Caius in Eusebius has happened to say, that he had detected in these several copies of the Scriptures many glaringly corrupted and falsified passages. That such a charge is far too general to affect the passage of the Heavenly Witnesses, is manifest to the least discerning. The language of the author in Eusebius is, that those heretics, under the pretext of correcting, had altered and corrupted the Sacred Writings to such a degree, that their own copies even widely differed from each other: that they could not deny the truth of this charge, as their own manuscripts were at hand to testify: that such Scriptures they had never received from those by whom they had been initiated into the Christian faith; nor could they produce any other copies from which they had transcribed their falsified readings. Of says nothing; though, if he had, that surely could have been no presumptive evidence of the general omission of the Heavenly Witnesses, as their corruptions were confined to their own copies, and were more likely to become objects of abhorrence than models of imitation to the orthodox Christian. To insinuate for a moment, that the Arian faction had it in their power to exterminate from one of the canonical epistles a whole verse, and that so dextrously and effectually as to escape the detection of all contemporary opponents, is an insult to the memory of those venerable fathers who encountered and vanquished the assaults of the Arians. The tenets of that heretical monster were never so triumphant, but that there were always in the Christian world some whole dioceses, if not whole provinces too, which opposed their dissemination ; and in those dioceses and provinces the integrity and preservation of the Sacred Text, but more especially of such passages as the Heavenly Wit nesses would be vigilantly guarded and defended against the designs of the enemy. In short, it would have been just as practicable for the Arians, in any age of the church, to expunge a whole chapter, as to expunge a single verse; and the devil himself would have been foiled in attempting it. But if there were nothing besides to urge, the fact that the verse was wanted in the copy of the venerable Eucherius, the Archbishop of Lyons, would of itself be sufficient to set aside all pleas of this sort for its omission in the Greek manuscripts. The episcopal chair of Lyons was first filled by the blessed Pothinus, who had been ordained and sent thither by Polycarp of Smyrna, the |