ite Ebionites, "their ancient. Hebrew Christians;" but nothing discouraged, they accuse the latter of taking away the genealogy. We shall not dispute with them the truth of this accusation; but this accusation, instead of diminishing, increases the embarrassment of the Editors with their Ebionite friends, whose purest copy of the Gospel of Matthew, which they would on no account curtail, did not contain, the genealogy; for these Hebrew Christians, who, according to these Editors, justly laid so great a stress" on "the descent of Christ, from Abraham aud David," must have had some motive for taking. away a genealogy which traces this descent. The truth appears to be, that Matthew has so connected the genealogy with the succeeding narrative, that the Ebionites, in mutilating the Gospel of Matthew, thought it safer and more consistent to suppress the whole of this part, than to retain the genealogy, and reject the subsequent narrative; and the Ebionites were better qualified than their modern friends, the Editors of the Improved Version, to determine whether it consisted with their own views, to retain in or leave out of their Gospel the genealogy of Matthew. There is no evidence that the Gospel used by Cerinthus and Carpocrates, did not contain the whole of the first two chapters of Matthew; the only reason assigned by the Editors, why it could not, is, because it contained the genealogy; "this account, therefore," say they," of the miraculous conception of Jesus Christ, must have" been wanting in the copies of Cerinthus and Carpocrates." This luminous argument cannot be better illustrated, than by a reference to all the Greek manuscripts of Matthew's Gospel, to which I shall add what Lardner says of the Cerinthians. "It may be questioned, whether the opinion of the Cerinthians be rightly represented. If they receive the genealogy in Matthew, as he (Épiphanius) says they did, they might argue that Jesus was truly a man, but must allow that he was born of a virgin." From this passage it appears, that Lardner doubted the accuracy of Epiphanius's account of the Cerinthians. Of this same Epiphanius, Mr. Belsham says, " that the opinion of so credulous a writer is not worth a straw;" but such was not the sentiment of the candid and learned Lardner, though he did not implicitly receive all that he found in the works of Epiphanius; and it is rather remarkable that Mr. Belsham should have expressed himself in terms of such severe reprehension of a writer, to whom he and his fellow Editors are indebted for most, if not all, of their external evidence against the genuineness of the first two chapters of Matthew's Gospel, But this narrative of the miraculous conception " could not have been written by the author of the genealogy, because it contradicts his design." Are these Unitarian Editors sure that their zeal for their own system has not induced them to attribute to the author of the genealogy, what, in their opinion, his design ought to have been, rather than what it really was? If the author of the genealogy was • Lardner's History of Heretics, 4to. Edit. p. 151. VOL. XXI. N.S. other than the author of the narrative, and wrote with an opposite design, he would not, when he came to Joseph, have made a sudden transition from his uniform mode of expression. The genealogy gives the natural line of descent from Abraham, through David to Joseph, and therefore uses tynos, begat, in each instance, even when the mothers, on account of something peculiar in their history, are mentioned; but when it comes to Jacob, the father of Joseph, instead of saying, Jacob begat Joseph, and Joseph begat Jesus of Mary, it says, Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ;" or, in other words, though he was born of Mary, he was not begotten by Joseph her husband. The subsequent narrative says the same.' pp. 126—129. Nothing which could by possibility be urged in the shape of objection to the impugned chapters, has been overlooked by the Editors. The evangelist Luke,' they tell us, in his preface to the history of the Acts of the Apostles, reminds h his friend Theophilus, Acts i. 1., that his former history contained an account of the public ministry of Jesus, but makes no allusion to the remarkable incidents contained in the two first chapters; which, therefore, probably were not written by him.' This is another of the passages which are so frequently to be met with in the notes to the Improved Version, in which the Editors have assumed a tone of expression sufficiently bold for the assertion of the least questionable points, but in which it is easy to detect the weakness of the statement, and the still greater weakness of the conclusion which confident language would commend to our acceptance. Thucydides declares the subject of his History to be, the war between the Peloponnesians and the Athenians; but what should we think of a proposal for the rejection of the early parts of his work, on the strength of such an argument as this? Thucydides makes no allusion, in the declaration of his purpose as the writer of a history, to the other topics which he has introduced into his first book, and therefore, probably, those parts were not written by him. The reference of Luke to his Gospel is concise and general, and with the terms of that reference, the contents of the first two chapters are perfectly consistent. To the observations that interpolations so large and gross as the chapters in question could not have escaped detection, and would never have been so early and so generally received, the Editors, after some other remarks, are pleased to reply, that these interpolated passages would, to the generality of Christians, be foextremely gratifying, as they wouldlessen the odium attached to Christianity, from its Founder being a crucified Jew, and would elevate him to the dignity of the heroes and demigods of the heathen mythology.' Have they any evidence to offer in support of this strange assertion? Or is it merely their own conjecture? If the former be the case, they should produce their authorities. If the latter be the fact, the supposition is not creditable either to their understanding or their taste. The generality of Christians were never ashamed of the fact that Jesus was crucified, nor did they ever palliate or seek to disguise the sorrows and sufferings of their Saviour. With the pages, of the New Testament open before them, and the example of the most illustrious of Christian professors in view, they could never be ashamed of the cross of Christ. Another method which the Editors employ for the purpose of supporting their positions against the preceding objection, is, to strengthen the testimony of their witnesses by a display of their disinterestedness on the points at issue. The Ebionites and Marcion,' says Mr. Belsham in defending the Editors, held no opinions inconsistent with the miraculous conception of Jesus, or that should have led them voluntarily to expunge these chapters out of the evangelical history. The accuracy and the value of this defence may be fully estimated from the following paragraph. Does not A Calm Inquirer, in the second column of the page whence the above passage is taken, say, that the Ebionites believed "Jesus was the legitimate son of Joseph, by Mary, his lawful wife, both of whom were descended from the royal house of David?" Do not the Editors of the Improved Version say, "If the account of the miraculous conception of Jesus be true, he could not be the offspring of David and of Abraham, from whom it was predicted, and by the Jews expected, that the Messiah should descend?" Does not Mr. Belsham say of Marcion," He supposed Jesus Christ to be a spirit sent by the Supreme Being to rescue mankind from vice and misery; that he appeared in the form of a man, but was not really such; and that he did not visit the world till the commencement of his public ministry, in the fifteenth year of Tiberius?"-In direct contradiction to these Unitarian statements, we are told, and by a Calm Inquirer too, that the Ebionites and Marcion "held no opinions inconsistent with the doctrine of the miraculous conception." Such incongruities, such contradictory assertions, only require to be pointed out: they contain their own refutation.' pp. 319, 20. baIn the first edition of the Improved Version, the Editors adopted Newcome's rendering of Luke ii. 2. This was the “first enrolment of Cyrenius, afterward Governor of Syria." In the fourth edition, this version is discarded, and, "Now fs, this first registering was when Cyrenius was Governor of Syria," appears as the reading, accompanied with the remark, Which he never was in the time of Herod, and consequently the whole story is a fabrication.' And the reading of the first edition is, without any reference to its having formed a part of their own text, pronounced by the Editors to be a version which would never have been thought of had it not 'been to save an hypothesis.' What hypothesis, then, had they to save, when they published this very version in their first edition? They as little believed in the miraculous conception then, as they subsequently did; and we cannot suppose that their zeal for Unitarianism was slumbering when they made their first appearance as the Editors of the Improved Version. It would seem, then, that this very version might have been thought of, as we know it has been adopted, by critical editors who had no hypothesis to save. The Author of the "Vindication" delivers his opinion of the Editors' proceedings in this instance, in the following terms. The simple fact appears to be this; the Editors have discovered, since they first published the Improved Version, that their improved. version of the passage before us, obviated an historical difficulty which they do not desire to see removed, as it occurs in a part of the Gospel of St. Luke, which they have rejected as a heathen fable; therefore, "to save a hypothesis," they have endeavoured to recover this false step, by an unacknowledged alteration of their version, and by impeaching the motives which induced Lardner to adopt a version that removed the difficulty. Never was there less foundation for an accusation, than for this. of the Editors against Lardner. He has shewn no more predilection for the first two chapters of Luke, than for any other portion of the evangelical histories; the difficulties, whether chronological or otherwise, which present themselves in this part of St. Luke's Gospel, he fairly meets, and has proved them to be no other than those which almost unavoidably attend the histories of events of so remote a date.' pp. 375, 6. On the whole, the " Vindication" is an able and important work. It is the most comprehensive publication on the question at issue which has appeared since the Editors of the Improyed Version revived the controversy. We thank the Author for his seasonable and useful services, and recommend the present result of his labours to the attention of all such persons as feel interested in discussions which relate to the Integrity of the New Testament, Art. IV, The Adventures of Hajji Baba, of Ispahan. 3 vols. foolscap 8vo. Price 11. Is. London, 1824. THIS HIS is a very ingenious and entertaining history of the adventures of a Persian, as great a rogue as Gil Blas, but not quite so grand and diabolical a fellow as Anastasius; written of course by himself, and translated from the original M.S. by Peregrine Persic, whose alias is understood to be the well-known and respected name of Morier. That the Author is not Mr. Hope, might be asserted with almost as much confidence as that it is not le feu M. Le Sage. As a work of imagipation, it must not be compared with the laboured, exceptionable, yet extremely clever production of the one; nor, as a work of humour, does it possess any thing of the character and fascination of the Frenchman's tale. But who would look for either wit or humour, any more than for honesty, in a Persian? To compensate for the absence of these qualities, the narrative is made the vehicle of much entertaining detail respecting Oriental customs and manners, the result, evidently of personal observation, and bearing the mark of authenticity in the somewhat tedious minuteness of some of the descriptions, which are those of the showman, rather than of the artist, The hero, Hajji Baba, excites little respect or commiseration, his character precludes our taking any lively interest in his welfare; nevertheless, the rapid changes of fortune which he undergoes, and the ever-shifting scene, supply the lack of that higher charm which is communicated by commanding qualities, such as engage our sympathy with the imaginary individual. Hajji is not even a clever rogue, but, like Artemi, the Armenian, only a lucky one, who happens always to fall out of the dice-box of Destiny on his feet. He is a true predestinarian (in the Mahommedan acceptation); and though he often thwarts his stars, is still the favourite of the Oriental Fortune, the goddess of the Mosque, to whom, all other hope failing, he like a true believer resigns himself. He commences his career as the son of an Ispahani barber, sets forth on his travels as servant to a Bagdad merchant, is taken prisoner by the Turcomans, escapes, and becomes in succession, ya water-carrier, an itinerant vender of tobacco, servant to the Shah's physician, sub-executioner, devotee, merchant, and, in fine, secretary to an ambassador. He is on the point of setting off for England in the suite of the envoy, when the narrative breaks off. It will readily be imagined that this Persian Harlequin, if he says little worth hearing, contrives to amuse by his tricks; but the meritorious and distinguishing feature of the work, and that which induces us to notice it, is the sub |