ferent authors, are noticed by the Professor. In the application of his remarks to the Bible, the sources from which our knowledge of the Hebrew language is derived, are described :-i. e. the Chaldee and Syriac Translations of the Old Testament, the Arabic and Greek versions, and the Latin vulgate. In this lecture, the Margaret Professor appears as an advocate for a revision of the common version, and gives a very decided opinion on its necessity, founded on reasons which he details. We cannot possibly pretend,' he declares, that our autho'rized version does not require amendment.'

Our own sentiments on this subject are in unison with the Professor's, but, who shall revise? The lecture concludes with exhortations to the study of the original Scriptures. We cannot be qualified ' for the interpretation of the Bible, till we understand the lan'guages of the Bible.'

In the next lecture, we have rules given us for the interpretation of words. As every author must be supposed to employ such words, for the conveyance of his thoughts, as he believes will excite in his readers the same thoughts, the first rule obviously is, to ascertain the notion affixed to each particular word by the persons in general who speak (or spoke) the language in which it exists. Another rule is, that the meaning of a word, used by any writer, is the meaning which was affixed to it by those for whom he immediately wrote. And a third, that the words of an author must be so explained, as not to make them inconsistent with his known character, his known sentiments, his known situation, and the known circumstances of the subject on which he wrote. These rules are exemplified in the chief controversy which engaged the attention of St. 'Paul!' We cannot perceive that the passages in the writings of the Apostle, to which the Professor refers, 'relate solely to the question, whether a man could become a good Christian without remaining or becoming a Jew.' Sed non his locus. We entirely agree with Dr. Marsh, that we must understand an inspired writer, or we shall not know what his propositions are; and that the propositions of such a writer are to be investigated by the application of the same rules which we employ to understand other writers; but we cannot think that the interpreter who explains the Bible by the aid of reason and learning, will always be liberal, or, that intolerance is excluded from a Church by the admission, on the part of its members, that it may possibly be wrong. We could inform the Professor'who have thought it an imperious duty to prevent the growth of 'all other opinions on a subject so important as religion.' He uses these words in describing the principle of interpretation adopted by the Church of Rome, and by enthusiasts; but they

have certainly been exemplified in the practice of the Church of England, whose Act of Uniformity has slain its thousands; and the various attempts to enforce it, have proved as fatal to the peace and lives of mankind, as the assumed infallibility of the Church of Rome. From what principle did the cruel persecutions in the reigns of Elizabeth, James I, Charles I. and Charles II. proceed? The ruling powers of the Church thought it' an imperious duty to prevent the growth of all other opinions' than their own, on the subject of religion.' We entertain very great respect for the Margaret Professor, and give him credit for integrity in the assertion of his own opinions; but we cannot allow him to make that essential difference between the Church of England, and the Church of Rome, which would allot bigotry and persecuting principles to the latter, and true liberality to the former. In their practice they have but too much resembled each other. The Professor maintains, that between cannot 'err,' as claimed by the Romish Church, and does not err,' as affirmed of the Church of England, there is an important difference. Now we should be glad to decide this question between the two Churches, by the answer which the Professor might give to our question in relation to his own Church- She does not err :-but has she ever erred? The sense of our liability to error, if felt and practically regarded, would induce 'mutual forbearance in all our differences; but the instructions received from the faithful records of History prove, that the most grievous offences against charity have been committed by men who were neither enthusiasts, nor members of the Church of Rome; and lead us to express our devout wish that the means of employing inquisitorial power' may never be at the command of religionists of any description. See p. 56.

The next division of the lectures, is of a philological complexion; in which the Professor adverts to the formation of language, and treats of the literal and figurative use of words. Hieroglyphic writing, by which, not words, but objects, are represented, could not, he thinks, have led to the invention of letters, which represent, not the objects, but the sound or utterance of the voice, which denotes the objects letters are simply expressive of sound, and were probably suggested by the different forms assumed by the mouth in the utterance of each single sound. Words which expressed objects of sensation, were suggested by the objects themselves; and in providing words for notions acquired by reflection, some similitude must have been sought between the abstract notion, for which a word was wanted, and some other notion, already provided with a word. The proper or improper, the literal or grammatical, and the figurative or tropical, senses of words are explained,

and the consequences of explaining words literally, when they are used figuratively, are exemplified in the Transubstantiation of the Church of Rome, and the Consubstantiation of Luther. We cannot pay the Church of England the compliment which she receives from Dr. Marsh, p. 71, that she has with due 'attention to that figurative style, so frequently employed by our 'Saviour on other occasions, interpreted his words "This is my "body"-"This is my blood" by the rules of analogy, and by 'the dictates of common sense,' while the strong and unqualified expressions The Body and Blood of Christ are verily and ' indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord's Supper,' remain in her formularies. The exemplification of metaphor and simile, with which the lecture concludes, might have been spared. It certainly possesses the prime excellence of exampleperspicuity; but it appeared to us undignified in the delivery, nor is it an ornament to the printed lectures.

The seventeenth and eighteenth lectures, are on Allegory; which is defined an interpretation not of words, but of the 'things signified by the words.' Examples of it are cited from the Bible, and the abuse and injudicious use of it are pointed out. The History of Allegorical Interpretation, a mode of interpretation which, it is said, originated with the Commentators on Homer in the latter ages of Greece, is given to us, as it existed among the Jews of Alexandria, the Greek Fathers, the Mystics in the twelfth century, and their followers in more modern times.

The last lecture concludes with some observations on typical Interpretation; and announces the subject of Prophecy for the next series of lectures.

Dr. Marsh informs us that the Supremacy of the Pope has been discovered in the first chapter of Genesis

The interpreter who made this discovery, was himself a sovereign Pontiff, and one who exercised that supremacy with unlimited sway. It was Pope Innocent the Third, the same who excommunicated King John of England, and who threatened even the Emperor of Constantinople. For this purpose, he addressed to him a Latin Epistle, in which he quoted from the first chapter of Genesis, the passage relating to the two great lights, the greater light to rule the day, the lesser light to rule the night. By these two lights, said he, are meant the office of Pope and the office of King; by the greater light is meant the former office, by the lesser light the latter office; so that as the light which rules the day, is superior to the light which rules the night, the dignity of Pope is superior to the dignity of King,' p. 111.

The luminaries,' says the Professor, in exposing the absurdities of this allegorical interpretation, should have been 'transposed. For spiritual dominion, whether exercised by

'the Pope, or by those who resemble him, is not a power that 'rules the day, but a power that rules the night. We thank him for this remark.

If the practice of spiritualizing texts of Scripture, of extracting meanings from them which they were never intended to convey, a practice, which, Dr. Marsh justly observes, places the Bible in a very false and injurious light,-were less rare than it is, the following remarks might be less seasonable and necessary.

If the literal or grammatical meaning of a passage may be exchanged at pleasure for an allegorical meaning, the meaning of Scripture will be involved in perfect ambiguity: it will assume as many forms as the fancies of interpreters are multifarious. In grammatical interpretation, which is an interpretation of words, there are certain rules of interpretation from which we cannot depart. But allegorical interpretation, which is an interpretation of things, is subjected to neither rule nor limit. As soon as an interpreter has learnt what things are literally signified by the words of a passage, he has nothing else to do than to let loose his imagination for the discovery of some other things which may resemble the things literally signified, and then those other things will at once be allegorically signified. And since the same thing may to various interpreters suggest various resemblances, the same passage may have as many allegorical meanings, as there are persons, who undertake its interpretation.-No grammatical analysis, no knowledge of Hebrew or Greek, no knowledge of antiquity, no knowledge of the situation and circumstances, either of the author, or of his original readers, is necessary for this purpose. Such knowledge is wanted only for grammatical interpretation It is wanted only, when the words, which we interpret, are destined to perform the office, for which they were originally intended. It is wanted only, when the words which we interpret, are considered as signs to the reader of what was thought by the author. But the expounder, who regards them as passive instruments disposable at his own will, and who employs them, as machines for the conveyance of his own thoughts, is freed at once from the shackles which bind the grammatical interpreter, and is exempted from all other wants than merely that of knowing what is best adapted to his own purpose.' pp. 104, 110.

Art. X.-Select Non-conformists' Remains: being original Sermons of Oliver Heywood, Thomas Jollie, Henry Newcome, and Henry Pendlebury, selected from Manuscripts; with Memoirs of the Authors, compiled mostly from their private Papers.. By Richard Slate. 12mo. pp. 389. Price 6s. Bury Printed. Longman, Hurst, &c. London. 1814.

THIS volume bears an appropriate title, and will not materially disappoint the expectation which it excites. It is a

pleasing appendix to what has been published by these excellent men, and to the accounts which have already been given of their lives.

The sermons are eighteen in number; several, however, are from the same text. They are of unequal length, and of various merit; selected, as the Editor informs us, either from the originals, (in the hand writing of the authors,) or from copies taken from the notes of the minister, or at the time of delivery. They exhibit, occasionally, a quaintness of phraseology, and a familiarity of illustration, repulsive to modern taste: these peculiarities, however, characterize the period in which the discourses were written; and it is only transporting ourselves a century and a half back, and we feel perfectly reconciled, both to the style and the manner. These men of God were "mighty in the Scriptures," and excelled in the skill of applying them: fervent piety, deep experience in personal religion, and ardent zeal for the conversion of the ungodly, and for the edification of believers, are most obvious in these specimens of their pulpit exercises. The times in which they lived, endeared the Gospel to their hearts; and the peculiar circumstances of danger, in which they were frequently placed, contributed at once to elevate their devotion as Christians, and to aid their success as ministers. We envy not their persecution; but who does not admire the effect it produced, and the character it formed? Who does not wish to resemble these worthies in the enjoyment they attained, and in the benefits they diffused?

But the biographical parts of this volume will, we apprehend, be more generally interesting. The account of Oliver Heywood is given most in detail, and contains a variety of incidents. The scene of his early labours was Coley, a village in the parish of Halifax there he was eminently useful; and there commenced his severer trials, He was laudably anxious to restore the order of the Gospel, and the regular observance of the Lord's Supper; but, in attempting this reform, discrimination of character was necessary, and many were offended. Some thought the terms of communion too lax; others deemed them too strict; and hence, the very persons who appeared to have been benefited by his ministry, maintained restless hostility against him. About the same time, a series of political events raising a ferment in his congregation, he was placed in the most difficult and trying situation. Mr. Heywood,' we are told,' was too prudent, and knew the nature of his office too well, to engage much in political affairs; but his sentiments were known to be in favour of the restoration;' and means the most artful, and sometimes outrageous, were taken to ensnare and ruin him. He records, with much feeling, the treatment he received even from his professed friends.