life is an essential part, and the result of organization.

Now, Mr. Editor, whichever of these opinions be right, or whether, indeed, there be any essential difference between them, there certainly can be nothing in either to warrant a declaration of war, or the indulgence of any other feelings in a wise man than a wish to see the truth promoted by fair and peaceable discussion. Unfortunately, however, medical men are slaves to system as much as theologians, and they can descend to the same arts to silence an opponent. Neither of the gentlemen referred to has been sparing in the language of abuse; but Mr. Abernethy, by the dextrous use of a weapon peculiarly his own, has contrived to put down his adversary beyond the power of a resurrection. If you ask me what this weapon is; I answer, the cry of heresy. Mr. Abernethy has discovered that the tenet of his opponent upon the subject of life is sceptical, and of a demoralizing nature, and therefore dangerous to society.

In the progressive state of science, it often happens that men outlive their early opinions. If this proves nothing else, it is at any rate a good argument for proposing them with modesty, and will save us eventually much shame and self-reproach. To stigmatize an opinion with ill names is oftentimes a substitute for argument; but when this is not the case, it is the mark of a bad temper, and shews plainly that we are not willing to trust solely to the evidence of truth. It is also unfair and unphilosophical to measure an opinion by its supposed consequences. Medical men, above all others, should abstain from such a mode of reasoning; for they ought to know that a strong religious prejudice prevails in the world agaiust the profession itself, on account of the supposed sceptical tendency of their studies.

but then it acts differently upon the great mass of society, with whom it serves as a scare-crow, and therefore the better suits his purpose. Medical men are generally supposed to derive their opinions from demonstrable facts; and whatever is not of this sort is, with them, matter of doubt or scepticism. Mr. Abernethy may fancy himself exempt from the charge; but I have reason to know that in what is called "the religious world," he is considered as much a sceptic as his opponent.

He tells us that in France, "a nation where the writings of its philosophers and wits have greatly contributed to demoralize the people," he does not wonder that physiological studies should be rendered conformable to what is esteemed most philosophical or clever; but that their principles should be extolled in England, he thinks "cannot but excite the surprise and indignation of any one fully apprized of their pernicious tendency.” With reference to the system of his opponents, he says, “Whoever, therefore, inculcates opinions tending to subvert morality, benevolence, and the social interests of mankind, deserves the severest reprobation from every member of our profession, because his conduct must bring it into distrust with the public." If this passage stood alone, no person would object to it; but applying, as he means it, to the theory of his opponent, it savours too much of the disingenuous arts of controversy. For myself, I am not prepared to say whether the system of materialism, which I suppose to be the result of Mr. Lawrence's theory, be true or false; but I really cannot see that the belief of it involves the serious cousequences imagined by Mr. Abernethy. That this gentleman does not always reason accurately, even where he appears to be most at home, is evident from the following passage: "What Mr. Hunter thought about sensation, I know not; what I think, I willingly declare, which is, that it can be neither the result of organization, nor an affection of mere life. In rea soning on the motions of the matter which surrounds us, and also of that of which we are composed, we must grant either that the atoms are motive, or that they are impelled to move. So also in reasoning with respect to sensation, if the atomis be

not sentient, it is impossible to suppose that sensation can result from the arrangement or motion of insensible atoms." This argument may be refuted by the analogy of a watch, which, when taken to pieces, is destitute of motion in any of its parts; but when put together again in a skilful manner, acquires motion as the result of combination.

I have no wish in any thing I have said, to derogate from the professional merit of the above gentleman, whose fame, I believe, stands deservedly high, and his works fraught with solid instruction. But great men are not always wise, and superior talent is sometimes neutralized by acerbity of disposition.

But the worst part of the drama remains behind. The governors of the charitable institution to which

both gentlemen are surgeons, having decided that Mr. Lawrence's opinious are of a dangerous tendency, suspended him from two of his appointments, and there is no saying how much further they would have proceeded, had he not appeased them by suppressing his book. This circumstance he announced in his opening Lecture of the present season, in which he stated that he had acted in deference to the opinion of his friends, who considered his work as having a bad religious tendency; his own views in it, however, were purely physiological, referring merely to explanations of the animal economy, the actions it is capable of performing, &c. apologized to Mr. Abernethy for the asperities of his pen; but declared, at the same time, that he saw no reason for changing his opinions upon the point in debate. With this partial compromise the disputes at the hospital have pretty well subsided.

He

On

7.

W. W.

the Rev. Samuel Newton's Objections to the Improved Version. LETTER IV.

SIR,

THE

HE wrathful writer of the "Trinitarian's Appeal Defended," in his Seventh Letter vents his displeasure in his usual indignant style against the Editors of the Improved Version, for having presumed to interpret the language of the New Testament in a sense favourable to the suspension of perception during the interval between death and the resurrection. Every theological scholar knows that there has always been a diversity of opinions among inqui sitive persons upon this subject. Luther was a zealous advocate for the suspension of thought: Calvin was equally, or even more, zealous in supporting the commonly-received doctrine of the intermediate state. this country the question has been ably dissussed between Mr. Hallett and Mr. Grove: and the writings of Bishop Law, Dr. Peckard and Archdeacon Blackburne, seem almost to have set the question at rest in the estimation of the thinking part of the community. But this writer, just as if he had never heard of the subject before, calumniates the Editors of the Improved Version, as if they had been the inventors and first propagators of a novel and dangerous heresy.

In

...

"There is one point," says he, pp. 76, &c. "in which the New Theology proposes nothing grateful except to the wicked. I refer to the doctrine of an intermediate state between death and the resurrection. This state, according to the new opinions, is an unconscious one. . . . The Editors of the New Version come forth to offer us the grave instead of paradise: and the darkness of continued death for the joys of light and life. Do you think we shall be disposed to listen to them and believe them? . . . . Trifling, indeed, and worse than trifling, are the arguments adduced by the Authors of the New Version on this subject. Criticism must be all mouth and no argument, if their conduct in this matter be deemed critical and weighty."

Is it possible that this writer should never have heard of the controversy concerning an intermediate state, till he looked into the Improved Version! and does he set himself up as a critic and a judge? His arguments in defence of the popular doctrine are trifling in the extreme; but with those we have at present no concern. He takes upon himself, however, to be very angry at the translation and interpretation of certain texts relating to this subject, particularly Heb. xii. 22, where he accuses them, in his usual polite style, of "playing their pranks again with angels." He is also highly offended with Mr. Lindsey's interpretation of 1 Pet. iii. 18, 19, who explains the words "spirits in prison," of idolatrous Gentiles, and not of human ghosts now in hell, whom Christ visited and instructed, as this gentleman would have us believe and in the plenitude of his critical authority he denounces Mr. Lindsey's interpretation, as adopted by the Editors of the Improved Version, to be "a most confused and blundering method of setting aside the faith of Christ's pre-existence, and of the existence of spirits now in prison." And if this gentleman says that it is blundering, who shall say it is not? It is true, that Mr. Lindsey was known and respected at Cambridge as an excellent scholar, as eminent for learning, as for piety, for humility, and for charity. But Mr. Newton says Mr. Lindsey was

a

gross blunderer in his interpretation of Scripture: and Mr. Newton "is an honourable, a very honourable man."

8. The next charge which is alleged against the Editors of the Improved Version is the old story, p. 85, that "they have but little reverence for the writers or writings of the New Testament." This learned critic is one of that good sort of divines who receive every book as canonical, which they have been taught to call canonical; and who believe that every canonical book is inspired. This easy and lumping faith is also a most convenient faith. It saves all the labour of inquiry, all the trouble of discrimination, and obviates all difficulties at once: "Alps are no Alps to that: difficulties are no difficulties to that." If it cannot understand it can believe; and if it cannot remove mountains, it can at least swallow them. To such a faith the Epistle of Jude is of equal authority with the Gospel of Luke: and it yields as ready an assent to the tale of a quarrel between Michael and the devil about the body of Moses, as to the momentous and strongly authenticated narrative of the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

It is but too true that those graceless and impudent witlings," the Editors of the Improved Version, were not gifted with this wholesome faith. In a far different way do these "ignorant and childish blunderers" manifest their respect to the records of divine revelation. Being strongly impressed with the conviction that whatever bears the stamp of divine authority, is to be received with the most unreserved submission, they regard it as a sacred and imperative duty to make the most rigid inquiry into the character and evidence of whatever lays claim to this high distinction; that they may not, through indolence and negligence, admit erroneous traditions and human inventions as the word of God. And as the books of the New Testament, which contain the doctrine of Christ and his apostles, were not all written at the same time, are not all of equal authority, and were not collected and put together by any supernatural direction, their first concern was to inquire what books were really writ

:

ten by the apostles, and by apostolic men and then to examine in what respects and to what degree any of these writings may have been corrupted by the inadvertence or unfaith fulness of transcribers: and, finally, to distinguish with the utmost care and caution between those portions of holy writ which were penned under the impression of immediate inspiration, and which justly demand unqualified assent, and those facts and arguments which may reasonably be regarded as the production of the writer's natural powers, and which, of course, are open to sober and candid examination and criticism. All this takes up much time, and requires no inconsiderable portion of patient application and notwithstanding every precaution, they may, after all, deviate into some errone ous conclusions. They will be sure to see many things in a different light from the vulgar herd of implicit believers and they may certainly depend upon being stigmatized with every epithet of disgrace and infamy by those who either cannot, or dare not, or will not, examine for themselves. And it is only such "witlings" as the Editors of the Improved Version, who value truth and a good conscience, and the Divine approbation above all other consideratious, who will either give themselves the trouble, or expose themselves to the obloquy of such an examination as I have described.

:

Upon these grounds the Editors of the Improved Version make a distinction between those books of the New Testament which were received unanimously by the Christians of the three first centuries, and those whose genuineness was called in question by early Christian writers; and whatever respect they may see reason to pay to the latter, as writings venerable for their antiquity, they perfectly agree with the judicious Lardner, that "they are not to be alleged as affording alone sufficient proof of any doctrine." This distinction, however, will not do for our learned critic, who would find himself sadly at a loss for a proof of the fall of angels, if the second Epistle of Peter and the Epistle of Jude were (as the latter unquestionably ought) to be withdrawn from the canon.

This writer, p. 88, gravely acknowledges, "I believe it has not been very common for a very long space of time for serious, learned and curious individuals to have doubts concerning particular parts of the sacred writings." The whole of his injudicious and uncandid performance pretty clearly shews that the line of the Author's reading extends to a very short distance beyond the writers of his own sect and persuasion. Yet still one would have thought that so very learned a critic might perchance have heard the name of the Rev. Edward Evanson, who was as "serious" as "learned," and as "curious" an inquirer after truth as ever graced the annals of literature or of Christianity; and who had better opportunities than many have, of manifesting the strength of his principle by the costly sacrifices which he made at the shrine of conscience. This gentleman questioned the authenticity of all the sacred historians excepting Luke; and denied the genuineness of many of the Epistles of Paul. I admire the ingenuity, and revere the integrity of Mr. Evanson; but I do not adopt his conclusions. I have, however, known some persons of sense, of learning and of serious inquiry, who have been convinced by Mr. Evanson's arguments. But I never heard the terms impudent and blundering witlings," or the like, applied to them, because of the peculiarity of their persuasion. It was my happiness to have been brought up in a school in which such language was not in use. And after all, how little is this angry gentleman qualified to pronounce a judgment in the case, when, by his own confession, he is quite ignorant that any differences of opinion had "for a very long time" subsisted among the learned upon these subjects. And, indeed, the whole tenor of his intemperate work corroborates his honest confession of ignorance, and too plainly proves that his criticisms, such as they are, were more frequently the result of irritable feelings, than of calm inquiry, or extensive information.