strong and nervous style, it is too often marked by carelessness, and is generally too diffusive. The work is, in truth, a valuable performance.'-A Vindication of the Authenticity of the Narratives contained in the first two Chapters of the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Luke, &c. By A LAYMAN. The object of the Layman's work is not only to refute the arguments urged by Unitarians against the portions of Scripture in dispute, but also to give the evidence in favour of their genuineness, &c.' The work is recommended.

THE ELECTIC REVIEW concludes the Review of DUBOIS on the State of Christianity in India, condemning the work.-Report of the Speeches delivered before the Presbytery of Glasgow, on the motion for inducting the Rev. Dr. M'Farlane. 'We have,' say the Reviewers, 'read this pamphlet with much gratification, on more accounts than one. It is extremely interesting as illustrating the state of things and the general sentiment existing in the Scottish kirk, on subjects of Ecclesiastical discipline; and it shews the exceeding importance and value of free and public discipline.' The question is, whether a professor who has recently had a living presented to him can retain that and his professorship. His induction was refused by thirteen votes to nine. It will be discussed again before the western synod, and finally decided by the general assembly.-LEIFCHILD on Providence, is very pleasingly written, and by the humble and thoughtful disciples of Christ, for whose benefit it is especially designed, will be read with equal benefit and satisfaction.'

THEOLOGICAL CRITIC.

THE REFLECTOR; or Christian Advocate, in which the united efforts of modern Infidels and Socinians are detected and exposed; Illustrated by numerous examples. Being the substance of the Busby Lectures, delivered on appointment of the Lord Bishop of London, in the Parish Churches of St. James's, Clerkenwell, and St. Antholin's, Watling Street. By the Rev. S. PIGOTT, A. M. of St. Edmund Hall, Oxford, Curate of St. James's, Clerkenwell, and Lecturer of St. Antholin's, Watling Street, Chaplain to Lord Viscount Carlton, and Author of Guide for Families in Sacred Truth,' &c. 8vo. pp. 432. IN the general strain of this work we are reminded much of Simpson's Plea for Religion, with the exception of those parts of that work which smite at the establishment. It is, in general, interesting and sprightly. The writer evidently enters upon his defence of christianity like a man who feels his subject-con amore. Mr. P. employs reasoning, facts, declamation, and ridicule as his auxiliaries. We should, however, have been better pleased to have seen more of the former, and less of the latter. Dr. Young's logic is powerful when employed in the contest between Deists and Christians,

'Wrong not the Christian, think not reason yours, &c.' Facts are quoted by Mr. P. but we wish that he had not had recourse to so many oft told tales. The case of the Hon. Francis Newport is quite stale. It is true the Infidel writers use stale arguments, and this may justify stale replies. We are, however, sorry that Mr. P. has done more than barely alluded to the story. It is true that a death-bed is an excellent detector of principle, yet it would argue a scarcity of materials, where we frequently have recourse to the same details.

We cannot commend Mr. P. for the introduction of the following anecdote:

'It was lately that one of our young sprightly radicals of the present enlightened day, was entertaining the company at a Coffee House, with his pretty profane drolleries and sarcastic remarks on religion and the Bible, when an officer in the room sud. deuly started up and said, Sir, that God whom you dishonour, whose religion you have ridiculed, and whose word you have profaned, is my best friend, for he is my Creator, my Father, and Preserver! and though I cannot dispute for him, I can fight for him, and, therefore, in the name of my best friend whom you have affronted, I demand satisfaction.'

Where would this officer's religion have been had the challenge been accepted? Would he have shot the Infidel and sent a soul thus unprepared into eternity? would he have exposed his own life to the shot of an Infidel? or would he have withdrawn from the field and injured his cause by shewing that he was only playing the bully? The spirit of this defender of faith, was not a spirit which his professed master would have commended. We would, therefore, recommend the expunging of this anecdote from another edition.

Nor can we glory with Mr. Pigott in the punishment of Carlile. He laments that it was not sufficient to stop his progress, and that he even continued to go on with unceasing prosperity through the tardiness of the law; and at last exults in the shop being shut up and Carlile and his wife imprisoned; but his exultation is premature in the first instance, for the shop is again opened. Indeed, Mr. P., much as we admire your zeal for Christianity, we must be allowed to differ from you in the manner of displaying it, and while we think the punishment of Carlile a discredit to Christianity, we are persuaded that it has rather served to increase his publications than to diminish them-to make him appear a martyr, who, if left alone, would have been but a little book-vender, and to confirm those in infidelity who cannot distinguish between the prosecutions of our Courts of Justice and commandments of the Holy Scriptures.

The invocation of our author, p. 40. to the prompt enactments of law, and the strong arm of power,' is only calling for fire from heaven. These means may

enrage, but they will never convert a soul. If the Infidel is guilty of theft, violence, or murder, he then becomes a tangible subject, but enter not into the regions of conscience. Punish not a man for telling the world that he disbelieves what you believe. Support not Christianity by such means. Would you so support it, then tell it not in Gath, publish it not in Ashkelon. What were we, yet God spared us in our sins and infidelity; and what had we still been had not grace made us to differ. Let us be more like God, who is rich in mercy.'

In passing on we observe occasional inaccuracies in facts, rhetoric, and composition. For instance, Mr. P. tells us, p. 8, that Lord Lyttleton wrote a volume on the Truth and Authenticity of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.' From this circumstance, we apprehend that Mr. P. has taken this statement from hearsay, for, the truth is, that not Lord Lyttleton, but Gilbert West, was the writer of the book referred to, and under the circumstances stated. Lyttleton's work is a small production on the Conversion of St. Paul,' and the other is a respectable octavo volume.

P. 5. The delicious draught is circulated in penny pamphlets,' is an instance of incorrect metaphor. Who ever heard of a draught being circulated in a pamphlet? It may be circulated in a glass, a jug, a bason, or a cup. Had the writer said, the delicious draught is cheaply circulated,' the metaphor might have been correctly retained.

In assailing Bolingbroke, the Author says, p. 90. He acts most insincerely. He willingly substitutes Christianity for Popery. Mr. P. evidently means that Bolingbroke's artifice discovered itself in substituting Popery for Christianity, and not Christianity for Popery.

We complain also of Mr. P. being also often very desultory. He hurries from one subject and object to another, by a hop, skip, and jump, and from Lawrence to Byron is at last but a stride.

We further object that he mixes too much of politics with his volume. P. 21. he calls Pitt our immortal

guardian of British principles and morals.' This is laying praise on thick-it is plaistering with a good trowel. But why is Pitt dragged with Herculean strength into the volume? Neither Mr. Pigott nor we have any thing to do with him in the question before us.

We must again dissent from Mr. P. He says that formerly the lower classes did not dare dispute the authenticity of religion. Formerly, theology was enthroned in our schools and universities, removed from the gaze of the multitude; it was elevated to an eminence equal with the sciences. Who, therefore, of the populace dared, for ages, to doubt or call it in question? And are we to infer from this, that they were believers? If they were, what kind of believers were they? We fear that too many believed by proxy. Alas! we do not think that this is a matter in which to glory, unless we could discover that the lower classes were then better than they now are. But formerly they were given up to the most deplorable superstition, and perhaps this is worse than infidelity. The progress of knowledge naturally leads to enquiry, and while enquiry has made many real Christians, who would have continued without it but mere formalists -Pharisees of the Pharisees; it has necessarily led to a different result in those who have not directed that enquiry with minds humbly imploring divine aid for instruction. Though infidelity has many advocates, religion is by far the gainer by the present march of knowledge, and vulgar infidels are merely deserters from the ranks of superstition and formality.

We have mentioned ridicule as one of Mr. P.'s weapons. Although the infidel considers ridicule as the test of truth, and Mr. P. has often turned his own weapon against him, we think it ought to be used more sparingly, because, the infidel, however he may claim the privilege of using it on his own side, will, when it is opposed to him, very rationally object that ridicule is not argument. But we are pleased with the manner in which Mr. Pigott throws his shafts at Law