lanthropy. Private opinion may thus be maintained with the greatest enthusiasm, and the most persever ing ingenuity-for its defender will not support it merely as one Sapuλart, but as one sincerely desirous to promote the advancement of knowledge. In the next place, the zeal of the controversialist must not be exclusive. He must not deny to his opponent equal earnestness in the cause of truth. Though he may think that all depends on the achievements of his own hand, he must not condemn the exertions of another as if they were altogether useless. He must regard his nominal antagonist as his real coadjutor, acting only on a different line of operation. While he is on the alert therefore to detect every error in the adverse statements and argu. ments, he will rejoice only at the triumph of that which he conceives to be the truth, and not in the personal discomfiture of his opponent. Had these fundamental rules been observed, we should not have that cause for complaint, which is sup plied us by this pamphlet of Mr. Nolan and its predecessors in the controversy. We single out this last pamphlet, because it most outrages the principles for which we contend. Written in a style of acrimonious flippancy, it spares not insinuation against the understand ing, the veracity, the honesty, or the temper of his unfortunate antagonist. We do not wish to give additional currency to so much opprobrious language, and therefore make no particular quotations in proof of our assertion-we need only say that instances are to be found passim throughout its pages. That he had not observed the bounds of due respect towards his antagonist, Mr. N. himself indeed seems to have been aware. For at the close of his remarks, we find him resorting to the following apology, though he will not even condescend to acknowledge it to be an apology. "In taking my final leave of such an opponent, I make no apology for the strain in which I have condneted my defence. If it be thought that it has been › conducted with unnecessary asperity; to this splendid and powerful sentence, I leave its vindication: Hoc et ratio doctis, et necessitas barbaris, et mos gentibus, et feris natura ipsa, præscripsit, ut omnem semper vim, quacunque ope possent, a cor pore, a capite, a vita ipsa propulsarent,”” Now to apply this sentence to Mr. Nolan's case, we would ask, where was the violence which he had sustained, either corporally, capitally, or vitally? Dr. Falconer had attacked an hypothesis, which he had ingeniously advanced in the course of his erudite work on the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, namely, that Eusebius, in obeying the instructions of Constantine, by which he was empowered to prepare a number of copies of the Scriptures, had availed himself of the opportunity to corrupt the sacred text, by omitting certain passages, and in particular that relating to the doctrine of the Trinity. St. John i, 5. 7. The only violence done was to his hypothesis, that indeed had been assailed-somewhat unceremoniously we must say, but there was no call surely for the principle of self-preservation. He had only to defend his opinion against the assaults of Dr. Falconer. It was rather incum bent upon him to shew, that in himself he had received no damage in the attack, and that he was quite secure behind the impregnable battery of his arguments. The terms prefixed to Dr. Falconer's second pamphlet, were certainly very offensive in themselves. It stated the subject in this manner:-"The absurd Hypothesis, that Eusebius of Cæsarea, Bishop and Historian, was an Editor or Corrupter of the Holy Scriptures, exposed, &c.”—instead of the more temperate style adopted in the first, which was designated; The Case of Eusebius, &c. ex. amined." But it was by no means necessary for Mr. Nolan to meet offence with offence. He had a noble opportunity indeed offered to him to imitate the conduct of the "judicious" Hooker, who on a simi. lar occasion acted very differently. "To your railing," said that man of meekness in auswer to the attacks of Mr. Travers, "to your railing I say nothing, to your reasons I say what follows." Having expressed our opinion as to the conduct of this controversy, we proceed to state to which view of the case we are disposed to lean. Here then we must acknowledge that we do not think that Mr. Nolan has made out a sufficient case against Eusebius. The verbal criticism of a single passage does not appear to us to be the proper ground for establishing the probability, that Eusebius took such an unwarrantable liberty of mutilating the sacred text. Supposing even that the pas. sage adduced from the letter of Constantine conveyed, as Mr. Nolan supposes, a sanction from the Emperor for the use of a discretionary power in copying the Scriptures, we must not at once conclude from such a sanction, that Eusebius did actually use the power so conceded. We are not to infer, that, as a ruler of the Christian Church, and know ing the value of all Scripture as given by inspiration of God, he would not have scrupled to adopt a suggestion, which the Emperor in ignorance of the true nature of the sacred records, may have made to him. And if he did suppress any passages of Scripture, why did he not also suppress the letter itself, which thus interpreted, gives him what the Church at large must have judged an illicit sanction, and must have raised a suspicion of his faithfulness in executing the office of transcription? But with all respect for Mr. No. Jan's profound ecclesiastical knowledge, we cannot help agreeing with Dr. Falconer, that the passage quoted from the letter of Constantine does not admit the sense which Mr. No. lan would elicit from it. It is foreign to our purpose to enter into a minute Walton's Life of Hooker, prefixed to the Ecclesiastical Polity. p. 20. folio. investigation of the exact force of the words, "gris" and " λόγος, upon which so much stress has been laid in the course of the controversy, There is, we think, no occasion for a diatribe on either of these words, The prima facie evidence of the document from which the passage in question is taken, satisfies us, that nothing more is implied than a command from the Emperor, for copies of the Sacred Scriptures to be exe, cuted under the care of Eusebius, and we are the more confirmed (rather perversely perhaps) in this opinion, from the ingenuity em ployed by Mr. Nolan in establishing his construction of the passage. We look then to Mr. Nolan's future labours, for some more suc cessful vindication of the celebrated text of the heavenly witnesses. His hypothesis is not a foundation suffi ciently ample for such a fabric! Anxious as we are that a text which adds so strong a testimony to the concordant voice of Scripture, pro claiming a Trinity in the Unity of the Godhead, should be proved to belong to the sacred Canon,-yet we think it behoves every sincere friend of the truth, to be especially cautious, lest by admitting so im portant a confirmation as that of St. John, i. 5. 7. on imperfect evidence, he should subject the other indis putable proofs to a like imputation of weakness. One infirm argument does more to invalidate a good cause, than many good ones to support it. Instead of co-operating, it counteracts, for it withdraws a portion of our strength to its own defence. Presenting too a vulnerable part to the enemy, it enables him to make some impression on our line, and hé thus appears to have gained a victory by the partial dismay which he has produced. We must not then be too eager in receiving an ally, which may prove an incumbrance instead of an auxiliary. Besides, the same hypothesis upon which we should receive the doubtful text into our Canon, might be employed as well 312. in questioning other texts. If Eusebius expunged some passages, he may have inserted or altered some, and we are thus at once let loose into a wide sea of conjecture, not knowing what to receive, or what to reject, in the volume of inspiration. Dr. Falconer, indeed, appears not to have put the case too strongly, when he says, that "The hypothesis will be of more use to the Deist and the Infidel, than to the Christian, to him who wishes to annihilate the whole volume of sacred Scripture, than to him who proposes to reinstate in their supposed places, or to restore to their former supposed authority, a few, though important, sentences," Nor is it only in reference to the Scriptures that we object to the tendency of Mr. Nolan's hypothesis. What must not its effect be on the authority of Eusebius as an his. torian? The same person who would not scruple to corrupt the text of Scripture, would not hesitate, we may be assured, to falsify facts. He who, as a Bishop of the Church, could misrepresent her doctrines by suppression, or by any other means, as an historian of the Church would not, we conceive, be more impartial or exact, What then are we to think, with respect to that important portion of ecclesiastical history which he has recorded ?—a history, which has been constantly received in the Church as an authentic account of the earliest ages of Christianity-Could a history so esteemed have been written by so desecrated a hand? It is hardly to be supposed. Either then we must reject Mr. Nolan's hypothesis, as casting an unjust stigma on our his. torian, or we must think that the high reputation, which his writings have obtained with men of various parties in the Church, is strangely unfounded. An Historical Catalogue of the were in Scotland at the Time of the Reformation, by John Spottiswoode, Esq. A new Edition, corrected, and continued to the present Time; with a Life of the Author, by the Rev. M. Russel, LL.D. Rivingtous. 1824. FEW writers on the subject of Scottish antiquities have acquired a higher authority than Keith. His indefatigable research into the ancient records of his country has furnished abundant materials to more recent authors; and the sterling honesty of his character has extorted the applause even of those, who differed most widely from him iu religious and political opinions. Keith, no doubt, had his partialities -there are few men without them; but, however they may have affected his general conclusions, they never, in any degree, interfered with his statement of facts. In all his voluminous writings, there is not, perhaps, a single fact wilfully misrepresented, nor any document suppressed, which could throw light on the transactions of the period of which he wrote. This is the highest praise that can be bestowed on the historian; and it is praise, to which the venerable Keith is fully entitled. We are not called upon, nor is it necessary, to defend the soundness of his views; but we can confidently recommend his History of the Affairs of Church and State in Scotland, from the beginning of the Reformation," as a most interesting and authentic register of the transactions of that remarkable period. We are fully disposed to acknow ledge the immense results which these transactions have produced; but we may be allowed to question, with Keith, the wisdom of many of the chief actors in that scene of reform, and to lament the want of moderation in them all. The most popular of Keith's productions is the "Catalogue of Bishops," now given to the public for the second time. Its value has long been known to the historian and the antiquary. Its authority, as a book of reference, on subjects connected with the temporal rights of the Church, is established by the frequent appeals which are made to its statements in the law courts of Scotland. The present edition is printed verbatim from the original quarto edition published in 1755. The editor has considerably en-, hanced the value of the work, by the notes which he has subjoined to the historical part, and by the ad dition of several original articles. These consist of a Life of Keith, a supplement to the Dissertation on the Culdees, and an Historical Sketch of the State of Episcopacy in Scotland since the era of the Revolution. Of Keith's personal history little is known. He was attached to the Episcopal Communion, at a time, when its members were subjected to the severest enactments of penal law, and harassed by the jealousy, aud, sometimes, the persecution of a hostile Establishment; necessity compelled them to court obscurity and concealment, so that few notices can be collected concerning the character and conduct even of their most eminent churchmen-and some of them were eminent for learning, and many distinguished for piety, and a patient endurance of the greatest hardships and privations. From the scanty records which Dr. Russel has been enabled to collect, it appears that Keith was born on the 7th February, 1681, at Uras, a small estate in the county of Kincardine, of which his family possessed the fee simple, or what is called in Scotland the wadset. He was descended from the celebrated family of Keith, Earls Marischal of Scotland; a descent, on which the good man seems to have set no slight value, and which he took great pains to establish against the pretensions of another claimant to the honour. He received his education at Aberdeen, and became tutor to the famous Marshal Keith, to whom his Catalogue of Bishops is dedicated. In 1710 he took holy orders in the Episcopal Church; and, in 1727, was consecrated to the office of a bishop in that communion. From this period bis whole time was devoted to the duties of his sacred function, and to antiquarian pursuits, in which he seems to have taken great delight. We must refer our readers, for farther particulars of the life of this worthy man, to the sensible and well-written narrative of Dr. Russel. We shall now pass on to the Dissertation, concerning the history of the Culdees. The chief interest which has drawn attention to these ancient monks, has arisen from some peculiarities in the rule to which they were subject, and in the privileges which they enjoyed. Presbyterian writers, though they affect to despise the testimony of antiquity on the subject of Church government, when it is urged against them by their Episcopal adversaries, have yet, on some occasions, manifested no small solicitude to derive support to their peculiar polity from ancient practice, or, at least, to shew that this sort of evidence is not so entirely on the side of their opponents, as has been generally alleged. Many writers on that side of the question have thought they could discover some very near resemblance to the Presbyterian polity in the scheme of administration adopted by the disciples of Columba; the arguments of Blondel, Selden, Baxter, and Sir James Dalrymple, failed, however, to convince the world of the fact, and it was generally believed that the Culdees, whatever might be their particular rule of monachism, entertained pretty much the same notions on points of doctrine and church government, as were held by the rest of the Christian world. In 1811 Dr. Jamieson revived the arguments of the old Presbyterian writers, and endeavoured to fortify them by all the additional topics which his great antiquarian research could supply. In this dissertation Dr. Russel meets the arguments of the venerable affirmed, either that the words were synanymous, or that Bede was not aware of their difference; for, besides that, in his works at large, he observes the common distinction between presbyter and bishop, he marks it with particular emphasis, in regard to Iona itself; telling his reader that the head of that establishment was always a presbyter, and not a bishop; and conveying, too, with considerable empha information, that the bishop there was held sis, and no small surprise, the additional under a species of subjection to the abbot of the monastery-that the presbyter monks should have acknowledged the superiority of their presbyter-abbot, was regarded quite as a matter of course, and could excite no astonishment in a Church who is called a bishop, and who is said to historian. The office bearer, therefore, be subject in an unusual manner (more inusitato) to the rector of the monastery, must necessarily have been of different and higher order than that of presbyter. If this be admitted, it may then be reasonably asked, how could a college of presbyters consecrate a bishop? On what their brethren a rank, a power, and an principle could they confer upon one of authority, which they themselves did not possess? Is it possible to view such a transaction in any other light than that of a piece of solemn mockery? They knew the difference between bishop and pres writer; and, we must confess, that he seems to us to have decided the question as far as argument is concerned. He has shewn, in a manner to us the most convincing, that the Culdees, in doctrine dissented not from the received opinions of the Church, and in discipline varied not in any material point from other monasteries, both in Europe and Africa, except in this one peculiarity, that the abbot was superior to the bishop; and this superiority appears to have been only in matters of monastic rule. The chief argument by which Dr. Jamieson expects to prove the Presbyterianism of the monks of Iona, is Bede's account of the mission of Aidan to Oswald, King of Northumberland, and the observation of the same historian, that the island of Iona "is always wont to have for its governor a Presbyter abbot, to whose authority both the whole province and even the bishops themselves, by an unusual constitution, ought to be subject." Now Dr. Jamieson takes it for granted, that such being the constitution of the monastery, Aidan received Presbyter. The historian who relates the ocbyterial ordination, because there is not "a vestige of proof from the record, that so much as one bishop was present." We shall give Dr. Russel's answer to this argument, as a good specimen of his contro versial powers, first observing, that "the council of seniors Bede says, elected Aidan, one of their own number, as being worthy of the episcopate, and having ordained him, sent him forth to preach." ، The inference, indeed, has a very plausible reasoning, and will satisfy those readers who have confined their inquiries to the volume in which it is to be found. But the most unreflecting of the author's admirers will naturally be induced to ask, why should the monks of Iona give the title of bishop to the brother whom they send forth; and why should they go through the form of declaring him worthy of the episcopate? Did the words bishop and presbyter mean the same thing in those days, or was the venerabie Bede, who tells the story, ignorant of the distinction usually implied in these terms? It cannot be currence was equally well acquainted with that distinction on what ground, then, shall we explain the conduct of these monks, which is apparently so inconsistent with the leading principles of their institution; or by what means shall we reconcile the use of terms, which involve us in such direct contradiction? There is only narrative of Bede, and consistency to the one way of restoring probability to the proceedings of the Columban convent, which is, to admit that the bishop, who appears to have had some connection with the monastic establishment at Iona, to whose abbot he was in certain respects subordinate, had also some hand in the ordination of the episcopal missionaries, who were sent into Northumberland from that famous seminary." P. lxxxvii. After bringing satisfactory proofs from Lloyd, that bishops were constantly employed to perform episcopal offices in all other monasteries, whence the presumption certainly is, that the practice was similar in lona, Dr. R. proceeds "The history of Finan, who succeeded Aidan in the see of Lindisfarn; affords |