death of Louis the Sixteenth. This has, on his part and that of his friends, been repeatedly denied; but as the accusation has been repeated, a hundred times repeated in the face of this denial, we shall here extract the proof of its falsehood from the late publicaof M. La Roche. It consists of attested copies from the Archives of the kingdom, of extraits of the ProcèsVerbal and Bulletin de Correspondance of the National Convention of the 19th January, 1793. "Procès-Verbal. "Une Lettre du 13 Janvier des Deputés Grégoire, &c., Commissaires de la Convention Nationale au département du Mont-Blanc, exprime leur vou pour la condamnation de Louis Capet par la convention sans appel au peuple." "Bulletin de Correspondance. "Lettres des Commissaires du Département du Mont-Blanc. 'Nous declarons donc que notre vœu est pour la condamnation de Louis Capet par la Convention Nationale, sans appel au peuple."" These extracts are regularly attested by the Keeper of the Archives. It is necessary to state, that a few months before the king's sentence, M. Grégoire had moved in his place, in the National Convention, and his speech on the occasion is printed, that the punishment of death should be abolished. The above letter from the Commis sioners at Chambery contained originally the words "condamnation à mort" but M. Grégoire prevailed on his colleagues to strike out the two last words, and send their vote with his, as it is worded in the extract, the original of which exists with the expression à mort, (to death,) erased by the Abbé's own hand. It certainly appears that he considered Louis as a great criminal, and we do not undertake to decide on the case of that unfortunate monarch. If we wonder that a man of the Abbé's mild character should have passed an unqualified or even an ambiguous sentence on the Sovereign of France, we are bound to notice the absurd injustice of calling him a regicide, who by his speech on the proposed abolition of the punishment of death, and by his vote here recorded, had twice most distinctly opposed the execution of Louis. The return of the Bourbons was the signal for all good Royalists to vie with each other in traducing the fair fame earned by M. Grégoire during the absence of the legitimate family. But it was not till a body of his fellowcitizens bore a public testimony to his great worth, by electing him Deputy for the Department of the Isère, that the full cry of this well-trained pack was heard. On this occasion he addressed the first of the Letters named at the head of this article, to his constituents. In this he notices and answers the calumnies which have been thrown out against him, by those in the pay of the government, and which, he says, are many of them founded on works falsely attributed to him, or grossly interpolated. But we shall only extract one passage, in which he describes the manner in which his Christian zeal was received by the atheists of the Revolution: "Quand, indigné profondement de voir l'Assemblée dans un oubli sacrilège préconiser l'apostasie, il (M. Grégoire) s' elançait à la tribune pour proclamer son immuable attachement à la religion Catholique: des hurlemens, d'horribles menaces tonnaient sur sa tête. La faction d'alors commandait de ne pas inserer son discours dans les feuilles publiques, ou de le travestir; ce qui explique la discordance de leurs narrations. Au coin des rues, on affichait des placards, imprimés contre l'audacieux, qui par sa raison. Pendant plusieurs mois à la Conrésistance avait retardé le triomphe de la vention c'était une sorte d'opprobre de s'asseoir près de lui, pour cela seul qu'il avait défendu ses principes religieux. Ces faits se sont passés sous les yeux de témoins dont un grand nombre sont vivans. Et, chose étrange, il a vu, il voit encore se déchaîner simultanément contre lui ceux qui foulaient aux pieds toute religion, et ceux qui s'en déclarent ensuite les hérauts privilégiés.”—P. 10. In the interval between his election and the meeting of the Chamber, various inducements were held out to M. Grégoire to obtain his resignation. These he firmly resisted, and on his rejection on a point of form, which was unwillingly listened to by those enemies who wished to expel him as a regicide, he again addressed a letter to the electors, and related the insidious attempts that had been made to procure his voluntary retirement. He again shews the falsehood of the charges proceed ing from the venal pens of his accusers, and thus exposes the intention of their constant repetition : "El qu' importe? Imprimons tous les matins qu'il est régicide, suppleons aux raisons par la surcharge et l'âcreté dés epithètes: la répétition tiendra lieu des preuves: nous aurons pour échos non seulement nos journaux salariés, mais encore les gazettes composées sur les bords de la Seine qui s'impriment sur ceux de la Tamise et du Danube.”—2de Lettre, p. 7. Monsr. Grégoire displays great eloquence as well as argument in these letters, in which he has stated, without ostentation, his labours for the good of his country. We recommend the perusal of the whole to our readers, but we cannot resist extracting one short passage which most exactly reflects the benevolent feelings of its author: "Parmi les faveurs multiplices dont la bonté céleste m'a comblé je compte pour beaucoup celle d' avoir pu, quelquefois, faire du bien à ceux qui m' ont fait du mal. Si mes vœux sont exaucés, cette faveur ne me sera pas retirée."-lbid. p. 24. And another, which eloquently proves that fortitude may form a part of the character of the meekest of mankind: "Celui que la fortune ne peut enivrer par ses faveurs, ni abattre par ses rigueurs celui qui calculant toutes les chances d'adversité, l'exil, la pauvreté, les cachots, les supplices, a son parti pris pour toutes les hypothèses: celui qui dans le trajet rapide de la vie, toujours haletant après le bonheur, en place le ravissant espoir au delà des bornes du temps, peut braver et désespérer les per sécuteurs." Ibid. p. 28. The work of calumny is still going on and, thanks to the censorship which governs the periodical press of France, it goes on uninterruptedly. M. Grégoire wrote lately a letter to all the journals in contradiction of one of the libels which are so diligently reiterated, and finding that the careful guardians of public opinion would allow no defence of a proscribed character, to neutralize the effect of the poison he wrote a second letter to the Duc de Richelieu, demanding, as an act of justice, that the calumny should not stand against him unanswered. These two letters have given the first part of the title to Monsr. La Roche's pamphlet, which has, we imagine, an extensive sale, as it has almost immeLa Roche is an able advocate of all the diately reached a third edition. Monsr. Liberaux, and particularly of M. Grégoire, of whom he gives many interesting anecdotes. But we must refer our readers to the work itself. We are greatly gratified to think that some of his countrymen dare yet to stand forth with their testimony in favour of so good a man. Indeed, M. Grégoire himself takes occasion to thank several anonymous writers who have undertaken the justification of his conduct. He has been, within a few weeks, addressed in an animated Epistle by Audiguier, with a quotation from which, in praise of his struggles against the power of Napoleon, we shall conclude: Un seul homme naguère au sein de la Sur les débris des lois fondait sa typatrie rannie, Tout pliait devant lui: despôte redouté Il voulait, abusant de sa prosperité Agrandir chaque jour ses conquêtes factices; Mais tu ne craignis pas, lorsque dans ses caprices De Et opprimait les rois, et les peuples Aussi, quand le suffrage et le choix de l'Isère élevaient, triomphant, au rang de ses élus, C'était pour honorer tes stoïques vertus, Et pour récompenser par ce public homTa justice inflexible, et ton mâle courage: treatment that all public defenders of M. Grégoire and of liberal opinions generally, are to expect from the tender mercies of the ruling powers. M. La Roche, whose pamphlet we again recommend to all who can procure it, has been condemned to an imprisonment of five years, and a fine of six thousand francs, for this honest expression of his political sentiments. The printer (a widow, who was ill at the time the book was published) is fined one thousand francs, and is to be imprisoned three months. M. La Roche has withdrawn himself from the injustice of his persecutors; but these men have at length found a more sure mode of distressing M. Grégoire, by sacrificing his advocates to their vengeance, than they could ever hope for from their personal attacks on his reputation. ART. II.-The Apocryphal New Testament, being all the Gospels, Epistles, and other Pieces, now extant, attributed in the First Four Cen turies to Jesus Christ, his Apostles and their Companions, and not included in the New Testament by its Compilers. Translated from the Original Tongues, and now first collected into One Volume. Printed for William Hone, Ludgate Hill. 1820. 12mo. THE HE design of this publication is sufficiently obvious. Adapted for the eye of superficial readers, it is intended to convey the impression, that the pieces here brought together were originally received as of equal credit with the books contained in the New Testament; and were excluded from that volume, on no other grounds than the caprice of certain ecclesiastics in the fourth or fifth century. The title. page itself is calculated to produce this impression, which is further supported by the preface. For the writer, having first adopted the unfounded conjecture of some persons whom he does not mention, that the volume of the New Testament was compiled by the first Council of Nice, quotes a ridiculous account of the proceedings of that Council, from which the conclusion is very natural, that the bishops there assembled were but ill qualified to discriminate between genuine and spurious Scriptures. And though he refers to a list (taken from Jones on the Canon, but without acknowledgment) of the Christian authors of the first four centuries, whose writings contain catalogues of the books of the New Testament, he is entirely silent as to the fact that none of them include any of the pieces in this collection; nevertheless, he does not hesitate to say, (Pref. p. vi.,) that these pieces considered sacred by Christians during the first four centuries after the birth of Christ." 66 were And as he takes no notice of this glaring defect of external evidence in their favour, so he says not a word to shew how devoid they are of internal proofs of authenticity, though that is so obvious upon the slightest perusal of them, and forms so broad a line of the New Testament. We therefore think we do him no wrong in conceivbe overlooked, and that having repreing, that he intended this distinction to sented the puerile and ridiculous pieces here published as equally authentic, or nearly so, with those of the New Testament, he has left it to the sagacity distinction from the received books of of for himself, that neither the one colevery reader to draw the conclusion lection nor the other is worthy of credit. But if the compiler of this volume had made a better use of the work (Jones on the Canon) from which he has, without acknowledgment, taken the greater part of his translations, and nearly the whole of his notes, he would have found that there exist the most satisfactory proofs of the low esteem in which these pieces were held from the earliest period of their publication. Nor has he adduced the name of a single author of the first three centuries that has quoted any of them. And those of the fourth century, to whom he refers the reader for the early authority of these books, have only spoken of them to condemn them; or, at any rate, have expressly excluded them from the sacred volume, as is evident from the list at the end of the volume. But how little reliance is to be placed upon the statements of this compiler, may be seen by an examination A fourth edition is about to be of the introductory remarks to the "The printed here. first piece in the collection, Gospel of the Birth of Mary." "In the primitive ages," says he, "there was a gospel extant bearing this name attributed to St. Matthew, and received as genuine and authentic by several of the ancient Christian sects. It is to be found in the works of Jerome, a father of the church, who flourished in the fourth century, from whence the present translation is made. His contemporaries, Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis, and Austin, also mention a Gospel under this title." Now, from all this, the reader would naturally conclude that Jerome, Epiphanius and Austin received it as a genuine work of St. Matthew. And yet, in reference to this very work, Jerome (or at least the writer of this part of the works attributed to Jerome) says, The truth is, this book was published by a certain disciple of the Manichees, named Seleucus, (who also composed a spurious history of the Acts of the Apostles,) and it rather tends to the ruin than the interest of religion." Epiphanius expressly includes the Proteuangelion (which is little more than a transcript of this Gospel) amongst "the most impudent forgeries of the Gnostics." And the way in which Austin mentions it is as follows: to what Faustus urges from the book entitled, "The Nativity of Mary," it is of no manner of authority with me, because it is not canonical." The rest of the note in this place only proves that, like other spurious pieces, this pretended Gospel has been very freely interpolated to suit different purposes. We may just remark another instance of disingenuousness. The titlepage, in a style of imitation not without its meaning, very pompously announces these pieces as translated from the original tongues;" when the fact is, that several of them are only translations of translations, and that the first nine pieces are, without acknowledgment, reprinted word for word from the work we have before mentioned, namely, A new Method of settling the Canonical Authority of the New Testament, by Rev. Jer. Jones, and the rest are taken from Archbishop Wake's Apostolic Fathers." As neither of these works is out of print, we cannot agree with this Editor in the opinion that he has rendered any service to the theological student or the ecclesiastical antiquary. That which he has here As presented to them in a garbled and "Kills a It is unnecessary to enter into a more detailed examination of this work. We think that enough has been stated to prove that the intention is insidious, and the execution flimsy and insufficient. But as this unnecessary republication has been made of pieces that have long been consigned to neglect, it may not be improper to state in what light they ought justly to be regarded, and what aspect they bear upon the truth and credibility of the New Testament. That a number of spurious pieces, containing foolish and ridiculous statements, should have been composed at an early period, and should have been partially received, is a thing so likely to have occurred in regard to a subject so generally interesting as Christianity, that it need excite no surprise, and cannot occasion any real discredit except to the authors of such writings. In particular, it seems highly probable that any accounts of the infancy of Jesus, of which we have so few particulars in the New Testament, would be eagerly received, and, without any very rigorous examination, credited. It appears from the preface to St. Luke's Gospel, that many, even at that early period, had undertaken to write histories of Jesus Christ and his Apostles. The variety of pieces in circulation ultimately found their just estimation, according to the evidences which accompanied them of genuineness and credibility: and this was the only way in which the canon of the New Testament was formed. No restriction was attempted by the apostles upon the liberty which every one had of composing writings which he might conceive calculated to edify the church; they laid claim to no monopoly of inspiration; nor did they form any list or canon of authorized books. No council of the church undertook this task during the lapse of several centuries. The volume of the New Testament was gradually collected from different quarters in which the authenticated writings of the apostles were deposited; and so carefully was the discrimination made, that, although several of the pieces contained in our present canon were disputed, owing to some slight defect of evidence, it admits of the most satisfactory proof, that no piece now excluded from it was ever generally received as sacred. We will here give some general remarks of Lardner's respecting the Apocryphal books published in the early days of Christianity. They are taken from the conclusion of his work on the Credibility of the Gospel History. (Works, V. 412.) He says, "I. These books were not much used by the primitive Christians. There are no quotations of any of them in the apostolic fathers, by whom I mean Barnabas, Clement of Rome, Hermas, Ignatius and Polycarp, whose writings reach from about the year of our Lord 70 to the year 108. I say this confidently, because I think it has been proved. Irenæus quotes not any of these books; he mentions some of them, but he never quotes them. The same may be said of Tertullian; he has mentioned a book called the Acts of Paul and Thecla, but it is only to condemn it. Clement of Alexandria and Origen have mentioned and quoted several such books, but never as of authority, and sometimes with express marks of dislike. Eusebius quotes no such books in any of his works. He has mentioned them indeed; but how? Not by way of approbation, but to shew that they were of little or no value, and that they were never received by the sounder part of Christians. Athanasius mentions not any of them by name; he only passeth a severe censure upon them in general; nor do any of these books ever come in the way of Jerome, but he shews signs of his displeasure." "Few or none of these books were composed before the beginning of the second century." "The publication of these Apocryphal books may be accounted for; it was very much owing to the fame of Christ and his apostles." P. 418: "The case of the apostles of Christ is not singular. Many men of distinguished characters have had discourses made for them which themselves knew nothing of, and actions imputed to them which they never performed; and eminent writers have often had works imputed to them of which they were not the authors. Nevertheless, very few impostures of this kind have prevailed in the world, all men being unwilling to be deceived, and many being on their guard, and readily exerting themselves to detect and expose such things. Many things were published in the name of Plautus which were not his. Some works were ascribed to Virgil and Horace which were not theirs. The Greek and Roman critics distinguished the genuine and spurious works of those famous writers. The primitive Christians acted in the like manner; they did not presently receive every thing proposed to them; they admitted nothing which was not well recommended. Says Serapion, Bishop of Antioch, in his Examination of the Gospel of Peter, "We receive Peter and the other apostles, as Christ; but as skilful men we reject those writings which are falsely ascribed to them.' Upon the whole," says Dr. Lardner, we have all the satisfaction which can be reasonably desired, that the books received by the primitive Christians were received by them upon good ground, and that others were as justly rejected." 66 If any doubts have been occasioned to any individual by the casual inspection of the work we have been reviewing, we trust they will be set to rest by the opinion of so learned and upright an inquirer after truth as Dr. Lardner: and whoever wishes to see to full advantage the argument which may be derived from these very pieces in favour of Christianity, will do well to consult a volume written by Dr. Maltby, entitled "Illustrations of the Truth of Christianity." H. T. ART. III.-Sermons, by the late Rev. Joseph Bretland. To which are 8vo. |