mulgated, it may nevertheless be designed by the Almighty for perpetuity; as several parts of the Old Testament, primarily addressed to the Israelites, are applicable to Christians in a higher and secondary sense. This would be the more likely, if, like other brief and compendious summaries, the measure of obedience is to be regulated, not so much by the letter, as the spirit of the Decalogue. It is enough, however, for silencing the objection, to prove that no portion of it is so peculiar to the Jews as to forbid its extension to believers in Christianity." P. 189.

Mr. Holden proceeds to urge "that it still remains in force, obligatory upon Christians," from the language of our blessed Lord in referring to the Ten Commandments as a rule of conduct, and epitome of the moral law; and declaring "that it was not his design to abrogate any part" of that law. The declarations of the great Apostle of the Gentiles in his Epistles are likewise, he adds, in perfect unison with those of our Saviour concerning the universality and importance of the Decalogue. The permanent character of the Sabbatical institution, likewise, appears from the manner in which it is constantly mentioned by our Lord. Several instances of this Mr. Holden enumerates, showing from them-that the Sabbath "was instituted not for the benefit of this or that nation, but of all mankind;" that Christ never intimates, even in the most oblique manner, the abolition of the seventh day's peculiar sanctity; but explains its real end and design, mitigates its rigour, and corrects the notions of the Pharisees respecting its obligations; all which would be irreconcileable with the supposition of its being a part of the Levitical law, and to perish with it. For "a law not intended to remain is repealed, not amended." This is very just and our Church has given her high sanction to the same view of the subject by actually incorporating the Decalogue, and thereby the commandment respecting the Sabbath, in her service; thus perpetuating the obligation to a religious observance of it upon her members.

But then with regard to the particular day to be observed, Mr. Holden employs several pages in shewing that no one day has been strictly pointed out for the Sabbath; that all that has been required is that one day in seven be kept holy; that a seventh portion of our time be consecrated to the service of God. This was the case at the beginning; and the practice of the Apostles, "while it is decisive as to the duty of keeping a sabbath, does not render the day they adopted absolutely imperative upon succeeding generations.' It is manifestly impossible, too, for believers in every part of the world to observe precisely the same portion of time. Still, as Mr. Holden goes on to remark, as "the selection of

the first day of the week," which was appointed by the Apostles, "was then no doubt the wisest and the best, it must now be deemed a practice from which the strongest grounds alone can justify a departure." That selection was partly, perhaps, owing to our Lord's having risen on that day; partly by way of marking a distinction between the Christian and the Jewish Sabbath. Is it not probable, indeed, that our Lord himself directed the Apostles to assemble on the first day of the week following that on which he had risen, and that from thence it became a settled custom for them to keep that day? Whatever may have been the original cause, it appears manifest, and is carefully and distinctly traced by Mr. Holden, that this day was observed in the Apostolical and succeeding ages. We own, therefore, we should have used stronger language than that which our author has been content to employ, when he says, that" the chief grounds for the change from the last day of the week to the first, must be acknowledged to go no further than to establish its expediency." If these grounds be such as are enumerated by him— the selection of it by the Apostles; the special tokens of our Saviour's approbation; the uniform practice of the primitive Christians; the peculiar fitness of the day for the pious commemoration of our Lord's resurrection: we own we should say that it becomes "an imperative duty" on the Churches of Christ to observe that day. We are not satisfied with merely affirming, that "more may be said in favour of that day than of any other."

It is not in our power to follow Mr. Holden through his inquiry into the practice of the primitive Church as stated by the Fathers, whose language he has recorded and applied with the readiness and judgment of a sound scholar and divine: neither will it be needful for us to quote his sentiments respecting the proper mode of keeping holy the Sabbath day. For these we would refer our readers to the work itself. Mr. Holden is warm and elevated in his views of what is due from the creature to the Creator, from the beings who have been redeemed from destruction to Him who has graciously provided for their salvation; and his language corresponds with the devout feelings of his heart. He may be thought, indeed, by some to indulge even to excess in the expression of such sentiments. But this will hardly be deemed a fault by the Christian reader, especially when he contrasts it with the coldness of the half sceptic, or the lukewarmness of the worldly minded. Impassioned feeling and warm language can alone become him who sets forth the praises of God, whatever be the subject which he takes in hand; and surely no one can claim them with better

right, no one is more calculated to draw them forth, than the Divine institution of the Sabbath-the appointment by infinite wisdom and mercy of that day, so necessary to the temporal comforts and eternal happiness of man, on which he has the high privilege of celebrating at once the wonders of Creation, the completing of Redemption, and the great operation of the Holy Spirit in qualifying the first preachers of the Gospel for their arduous task.

Three Letters addressed to the Rev. Frederick Nolan, Vicar of Prittlewell, on his erroneous criticisms and mis-statements in the Christian Remembrancer, relative to the text of the Heavenly Witnesses; in which are contained, also, Strictures on the Vindication of the spurious passage by the Bishop of ST. DAVID's: together with a New Translation of the Genuine Text, proposed and defended from every cavil. By the Rev. JOHN OXLEE, Rector of Scanton, and Curate of Stonegrave. 8vo. Pp. 140. 3s. 6d. London. Rivingtons. 1825.

A Letter to the Clergy of the Diocese of St. David's, on a passage of the second Symbolum Antiochenum of the Fourth Century as an Evidence of 1 John v. 7. By THOMAS BURGESS, D.D. F.R.S. F.A.S. F.R.S.L. Lord Bishop of St. David's, (now Bishop of Salisbury.) 8vo. Pp. 124. 3s. 6d. London. Hatchard. 1825.

Three Letters addressed to the Editor of the Quarterly Review, in which is demonstrated, the genuineness of the Three Heavenly Witnesses. 1 John v. 7. By BEN DAVID. 8vo. Pp. 70. 3s. London. Hunter. 1825.

IN opening the first of these works the reader is immediately struck and repelled by the haughty tone and the asperity which pervade its pages. The disputed text of the Heavenly Witnesses, it is acknowledged on all hands, is not necessary to the support of the Trinitarian faith; and its genuineness or spuriousness can only be proved by deliberately weighing the evidence on both sides. It is to be considered as a purely critical question, in the discussion of which candour and moderation, at all times desirable, are particularly requisite. Though the evidence against the genuineness of 1 John v. 7. appears to some to be overwhelming, there are other distinguished writers

who have arrived at a very different conclusion; while still more, entertaining a prudent reserve, are of opinion that much remains to be done before the question can be finally set at rest. Many advocates of the verse, as Dr. Hales, Mr. Nolan, and Bishop Burgess, are names of high rank in theology, and whatever errors may be discovered in their writings, into whatever inadvertencies they may have been betrayed, they ought to be treated with the respect due to those who have deserved well of literature. The abilities and deep Rabbinical learning of Mr. Oxlee are duly appreciated by the public, and we regret that he should have yielded to so much unnecessary warmth, and even acrimony, in the Letters before us.

In the first of these Letters Mr. Oxlee comments upon some extracts from the ancient Fathers which have been appealed to in the present controversy, rebuts certain allegations of Mr. Nolan, and vindicates several of his own statements in the Christian Remembrancer: but as the principal matters here discussed have already appeared in that Journal, we shall forbear from attempting any recapitulation of them.

The second Letter introduces the author's refutation of the arguments for the authenticity of Jerome's Prologue to the Catholic Epistles. If this prologue be justly ascribed to that Father, it supplies a strong attestation to the genuineness of the disputed verse, as may be seen in Griesbach's Diatribe, page 24.; and of course the determination of this point is a matter of no mean consideration. The arguments of Mr. Nolan in favour of its authenticity are so imposing that few readers, on the first perusal, will be inclined to withhold their assent to his conclusions; yet these arguments are closely sifted by Mr. Oxlee, who argues on the other side with an ability and force which it is difficult to resist. It is not our intention to espouse the cause of either of the contending parties, believing, as we do, that it is more agreeable to justice, as well as to prudence, to hesitate rather than to decide peremptorily in questions where so much may be said on both sides. It is at least unquestionable that authorities, the character of which is so equivocal, cannot fairly be adduced either for or against the disputed text of the Heavenly Witnesses. Let us, however, not be misunderstood, as if we designed to throw out any insinuations against the controversies which we are reviewing: that is important which may, even in the most remote degree, affect the integrity of the Greek Vulgate. We ardently wish that every point connected with the evidence for 1 John v. 7. may be thoroughly investigated; yet it is not to be disguised, that many of the topics discussed in Mr. Oxlee's first and se

cond letters are of minor importance, and that they might be freely conceded to him without much diminution of the evidence for the genuineness of that text.

We proceed to the third Letter, the declared object of which is, to furnish, what hitherto, he asserts, has been attempted in vain, a clear and consistent sense of the genuine text. The connexion, he observes, of what is now the eighth, with the sixth verse, is so close, that there is no understanding their import, without supplying the whole context. This he does according to the Alexandrine manuscript; and his version is:

"This is he who came by water, and blood, and spirit, Jesus Christ; not with the water only, but with the water and with the spirit: and the spirit is that which beareth witness; for the spirit is the truth. For there are three who attest or bear witness of the spirit, and the water, and the blood; and the three are for one thing.". P. 86.

This translation he endeavours at great length to illustrate, and to vindicate from every cavil; but we shall content ourselves with quoting one passage.

"To me the immediate connexion of the text of the Three Witnesses, with the sixth verse, appears to have originated from a natural association of ideas in the mind of the holy Apostle. Having asserted that the Spirit giveth testimony, because it is the truth; he quickly calls to mind, that, as the Holy Spirit bearing witness within us, is the truth; so also are the Word, or the Son, and the Father the truth; and so equally unerring witnesses with the Spirit itself, which proceeds from them both. The conjunction, ört, therefore, as Grotius has well observed on this text, has not so much a causative as a continuative and augmentative signification; and, consequently, as well here as in other places of the Syriac version, it is rendered by the simple copulative: and in the Arminian version is wholly omitted. The connexion of the sense is, as though he had said: nay, there are even three, the Father, the Word, or the Son, as well as the Spirit, who are attesting witnesses of the Water, the Blood, and the Spirit, by which Christ came to erect his Holy Church; and these three are from one thing, that is, are accounted ɛis Tò Ev πvεõμa, for one and the same Spirit; the same Evangelist having elsewhere declared, that, ПIvɛvμa & Oɛós, God is Spirit. If then we receive the testimony of men, such as John the Baptist, who testified of Christ, that he had descended from heaven, as the Son of God, to baptize with water and the Holy Ghost; that he was the Lamb, which, by the shedding of its blood, taketh away the sin of the world; and that the Holy Ghost had visibly descended upon him in the form of a dove; if, I say, we are willing to admit such human testimony as this; the testimony of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, unto whose name every Christian man is solemnly baptized; and who dwell inseparably in the hearts of the faithful; is still far