of a Christian, we know not, but we know that he had the catholic spirit of Christian charity. As to peculiarities of religious belief, he seems to lay much stress, directly and indirectly, upon the principle, that "he who doeth the will of God shall know of the doctrine." A pure moral purpose reigns, a true religious aspiration breathes through the pages of Jean Paul. Heartily and confidently do we respond to his declaration respecting himself; -"In the coldest hour of existence, in the last hour, oh, ye who have so often misunderstood me, I can lift up my hand and swear, that I have never at my writingtable sought anything else than the good and beautiful, so far as my circumstances and powers permitted me in any measure to attain it, and that I have often erred, perhaps, but seldom sinned. Have you, like me, withstood the ten-years'-siege of a poverty-stricken, unbefriended existence, uncheered by a single smile of approbation or sympathy, and have you, when neglect and helplessness were warring against you, as they have against me, remained true to the beauty which you recognised as such?" Yes, no one can read Richter long without feeling that, amidst all and in all his eccentricities, he has a great, high, religious object. We do not wish to do injustice to it by a formula of words. Every calm and candid reader must feel and own it. He has been, with great injustice we think, characterized of late in one of our principal Reviews as being at the head of the Bedlam School. We should say to those who complain of Jean Paul's want of method, that he aspires to imitate Nature's plan. This may seem presumption to some, to us it does not. Among the exquisite sayings, that are scattered along the pages of Richter's voluminous works, is this. "Herder and Schiller both proposed to be surgeons in their youth. But Providence said, no; there are deeper wounds than those of the body, and both became authors." Richter expresses here that sense of the greatness and worth of his calling as a writer, which was always before him, above him, and within him. He seems to us a physician of the mind and soul. He can "Minister to the mind diseased, Pluck from the memory a rooted sorrow." In the work before us we have some, would we had more, specimens of his singnlar and so often effectual correspondence with those of his countrymen and country women, who wrote to him as their spiritual comforter and counsellor. Death arrested the busy hand and heart of this extraordinary man, in the midst of the preparation of a work on the immor tality of the soul. There is a passage in the preface to this work (Selina) which has peculiarly impressed us. "It may be asked (he says) why is there no humor in Selina? I answer, not because the subject did not admit of it, for see my Campanian vale, — (a former work on the same subject); not because I was too old, for see my next work, (a great comic work which he had planned out); the simple reason is, that I had no inclination for it." It has been our purpose in what we have said simply to give our prominent impressions of an extraordinary man and writer, in such a way as should induce others to possess themselves of Mrs. Lee's beautiful Biography, in which he speaks largely for himself, and thereby to wish to read still more of Jean Paul's works. As to the execution of the work before us, we can only express our sincere sympathy and gratitude for the deep and true appreciation, with which the author has approached her subject, and the felicity with which she has developed it amidst a peculiarly perplexing quantity of rich materials, which we only regret that the publishers or the public would not permit her to present to us entire, The Concessions of Trinitarians. Being a Selection of Extracts from the Writings of the most eminent Biblical Critics and Commentators. By JOHN WILSON, Author of Scriptural Proofs and Scriptural Illustrations of Unitarianism. Manchester. 1842. 8vo. pp. 614. We cannot conceive of a trinitarian looking this book in the face, without a decided sinking of the heart, without a sense of the ground, which he had taken to be so solid, sinking from under him, without the involuntary ejaculation, Save me from my friends. For here are six hundred pages of refutation of trinitarianism, by trinitarians themselves, drawn from over two hundred eminent writers of that denomination. In other words, it is a volume of extracts from celebrated Orthodox writers of all ages of the church, in which they have given Unitarian expositions of Trinitarian proof-texts. And it appears from examining the work, what indeed has often been loosely asserted, that there is not one out of all the passages in the Bible brought forward in support of the doctrine of the Trinity, which, by one or more trinitarian writers, has not been given up to their opponents, as admitting or requiring a unitarian interpretation. Here, therefore, we have a perfect armory of weapons for the destruction of the Great Error furnished by the believers and defenders of the error themselves. That here and there, by the advocates of any particular theological doctrine, an argument, or a text, should be surrendered to the enemy as unavailable, were natural enough; but that every such argument and text should by one or another be surrendered, is certainly strange, so strange, that no other example of the same thing exists in the whole history of opinion, — and in a fair mind must give rise to at least uneasy doubts of the truth of a doctrine, all the pillars of whose support have, one after another, been thrown down by its believers. In truth, this volume of "Concessions" strikes us as the most remarkable volume in the history of controversy, alike happy in its conception and successful in its execution. The author thus describes his own purpose in preparing the work. "In the present work, the author's chief aim has been to put forth what he conceives to be strong presumptive evidence for the great Biblical truth, that the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is the Sole and Supreme Deity, on whom every other person or being is dependent, and from whom they have derived their existence and their powers. This presumptive evidence is involved in the extraordinary fact of the most distinguished Trinitarians either having distinctly acknowledged, that, apart from each other, the texts commonly adduced in support of a Triune God, and of the Deity of the Son, and the Holy Ghost, as a third hypostasis in the Godhead, do not prove these doctrines; or having rendered and interpreted them in such a manner as to show their invalidity for the purpose for which they are brought forward; thus unintentionally and indirectly, but not the less conclusively, betraying the insufficiency of the foundation on which it is attempted to erect the fabric of Trinitarianism. "That the kind of argument here employed to support the doctrine of the simple unity of the Divine Being is of no inconsiderable weight, will be evinced by the fact, that "orthodox" Christians, as well as others, most readily and gladly wield it, when, in combatting with unbelievers, they adduce from the most eminent Deists testimonies favorable to the supreme excellence of Christ's character, to the special divinity of his mission, or to the unrivalled holiness and beneficial influences of his religion." - Preface, p. vi. The volume is divided into three parts; first, an introduction; then the authorities on the texts found in the Old Testament, in the order of the books; then, lastly, those on texts in the New, also in the order of the books; an arrangement as it is the most natural and simple, so it is the best that could have been adopted. A copious index, and an alphabetical catalogue of the Trinitarian writers quoted, close the volume. To show the working of this curious volume, let us suppose a trinitarian inquirer to have occasion to refer to his authorities on the text 1 John v. 7. He turns to such works as are nearest at hand. He finds on his own shelves the Lectures on the VOL. XXXIII. - 3D s. VOL. XV. NO. II. 32 Trinity by the learned Dr. Wallis of the English Church, a sound divine. Turning to the passage he finds it written thus; "The word person is not applied in Scripture to these three so called: it is not there said, 'These three persons are one,' but only 'These three are one.' It is but the church's usage that gives to these three somewhats the name of persons.” — p 559. But this will not do, so he turns to Le Clerc, who says; “Dr. Hammond does but wrangle with all the most learned interpreters, who interpret are one of consent. And the reason why they understand these words of consent is, first, because they are so taken in John x. 30, and xvii. 21; secondly, because here the discourse is about a unity of testimony, and not about a unity of nature." This is worse yet. He applies to the Catholic Church, and consults Father Simon, who says; - p. 559. "The most learned writers of the New Testament do not expound it with reference to the Trinity. The ancient ecclesiastical writers, who applied it to that mystery, followed the custom of that time, which was to give to Scripture such a theological sense, as was accommodated to the faith then received in the church..... These three, says Father Amelote, are one in their testimony. The Father bare record of Christ at the river Jordan, the Word by his discourses and actions, and the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove, and by his miraculous gifts. - p. 559. -- Father Simon is as far from the purpose as the others. Somewhat startled by this agreement among Trinitarians against the Trinitarian sense of this first rate proof-text, as he had always supposed it, he opens Bishop Middleton on the Greek article. The Bishop is more heterodox than the rest. 66 "I suppose," he says, "v sivat, in ver. 7, to be expressive only of consent or unanimity, and not of the consubstantiality of the Divine Persons; for otherwise to sv, of ver. 8, could not be imagined to have any reference to sv in ver. 7; I mean... on the assumption of the authenticity of that verse. Now that v Eva in the supposed verse 7 would not bear any other sense, has been admitted by very zealous Trinitarians; of which number was the late Bishop Horsley. But, not to argue from authority, let it be considered how the phrase v ra is elsewhere used in the New Testament. In 1 Cor. iii. 8, év va is affirmed of him that planteth, and him that watereth; where nothing more than unity of purpose is conceivable. With St. John, v eval was, as we have seen, a favorite phrase: in John xvii. 22, Christ prays to the Father, that the disciples ἓν ωσιν, καθως ἡμεῖς ἑν εσμεν. These passages, I think, decide the import of the expression in John x. 30, and wherever else it occurs in the New Testament.” — p. 560. Having now exhausted the authorities in his own library, he applies elsewhere, and happens to light upon Porson, (Letters to Archdeacon Travis,) Davidson, (Lectures on Biblical Criticism,) Calvin, Beza, McKnight, Rosenmüller, Lücke, Bloomfield, Erasmus, Schleusner, Bishop Burgess, and Dr. J. P. Smith, by all of whom, learned Trinitarians, to his amazement, a Unitarian sense is given to this celebrated text. Our inquirer is now fairly awake. Remembering that Bishop Middleton expressed a doubt, new to him, as to the authenticity of the verse, he resolves to know the whole truth, and to look up this question also. Ile turns to the most Orthodox authori ties; first to Bishop Lowth, who says; "We have some wranglers in theology, sworn to follow their master, who are prepared to defend anything, however absurd, should there be occasion. But I believe there is no one among us, in the least degree conversant with sacred criticism, and having the use of his understanding, who would be willing to contend for the genuineness of the verse, 1 John v. 7." — p. 561. This seems decisive enough, but he looks into Michaelis also, who speaks more positively still on the same side. "We have no reason to suppose, that the celebrated passage in the first Epistle of St. John (v. 7), which is universally omitted in the old Greek manuscripts, was erased by the fraud of the Arians. ... That great reformer of our religion [Luther] being persuaded that the wellknown passage in the first Epistle of St. John (chap. v. 7) was not authentic, refused it a place in his translation of the Bible, and in the preface to his last edition, protested solemnly against it; requesting those who were of a different opinion to leave his writings uncorrupted, and rather to make a new translation, than obtrude on the old what he denied to be genuine. But, guided by mistaken zeal in support of orthodox opinions, the divines of Germany, long after the death of Luther, inserted this spurious passage, and yet retained the name of 'Luther's version' on the title. - One should suppose, that no critic, especially if a Protestant, would hesitate a moment to condemn, as spurious, a passage which is contained in no ancient Greek manuscript; is quoted by no Greek Father; was unknown to the Alogi in the second century; is wanting in both Syriac versions, in both Arabic versions, in the Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, and Slavonian versions; is contained only in the Latin, and is wanting in many manuscripts even of this version; was quoted by none of the Latin Fathers of the four first centuries, and to some of them, who lived so late as the sixth century, was either wholly unknown, or was not received by them as genuine.” p. 562. He looks further, into the Quarterly Review, January 1822, and finds this high Church Orthodox Journal discoursing thus ; "We have the most sincere respect for the Bishop of St. David's; but we cannot peruse the declaration [of his belief in the genuineness of the passage] without astonishment.... The doctrine of the Trinity... is capable of being satisfactorily maintained from many other |