tion, shews a lustre equally unbroken, and a beauty equally regular. Admitted to all the familiarity of social intercourse, partners of his retirement, and witnesses of his most try. ing hours, the Apostles relate every incident without disguise; and from them we have a series of facts, clearly illustrating the habits, and completely developing the character of their friend and master. Yet, amidst all this variety of situation and accuracy of detail, the only impressions, left upon the mind of an unprejudiced reader, are those of affection and veneration for the transcendental virtues of Jesus Christ." (p. 266.) The object of the seventh chapter is to "examine Mr. Godwin's misrepresentation of the Christian Religion, and the character of its Founder." The charges brought forward by this halfread unbeliever, are reduced to the following particulars :— 1st. The bigotry and intolerance, sanctioned by the doctrines of the Christian religion. of a translation. Surely he might have known, and knowing, he ought to have stated, that neither suras, nor cwenCerai, nor natangibnGerai, has the narrow and confined sense, which is necessary for the support of his argument. That they who reject the Gospel, when proposed to them with suitable evidence, will be exposed to condemnation; while those, who receive and practise it, will ensure a blessing, is certainly the position, and the only position, contained in this passage." "What the condemnation thus incurred is, we are not precisely informed in this text, &c." (p. 300.) From these, and other succeeding observations, it would appear, that Mr. Maltby is inclined to adopt the dangerous and unwarranted opinion, that in the text quoted by Mr. Godwin, the words saved and damned do not mean eternal happiness and eternal punishment. they do and for the justification of this 2dly. The improper and unwarranta--We think, and are persuaded, that ble stress laid upon faith. 3dly. Certain moral defects in the persuasion, it may be sufficient to procharacter of Jesus. To the manner in which Mr. Maltby has confuted the first and last of these charges, great praise is due, and no exception can be made. But, with the means which he has adopted, for removing the force of the second charge, we acknowledge ourselves to be greatly dissatisfied. In support of his second charge, namely, that of an improper and unwarrantable stress being laid upon faith, in the Gospel of Christ, Mr. Godwin had said, "It is the characteristic of this religion, to lay the utmost stress upon faith. Its central doctriné is contained in this short maxim, He that believeth, shall be saved; and he that believeth not, shall be damned." Upon this, Mr. Maltby observes "From the manner in which this text is introduced, as well as from what follows, it is apparent that this writer affixes to the word damned the vulgar sense it has obtained in the English language. Now certainly a writer, so ardent in his professions for the cause of truth as Mr. Godwin, is the very last person, who ought to support any position, and particularly one of such infinite consequence, by the misapplication duce a text, parallel to the one in question, which occurs at the close of the third chapter of St. John; in which our Lord says, "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life, and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him." Here everlasting life is declared to be the portion of him that believeth; and with regard to the fate of him who believeth not, surely if any words in Scripture express everlasting damnation, or the punishment of hell, it is expressed in the phrase," he shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him.” That Mr. Godwin's notion of the scriptural meaning of faith was very inadequate, is extremely probable; and had Mr. Maltby, after explaining this term, proceeded to justify that stress which certainly is laid upon faith in the Gospel of Christ, as being neither "improper" nor "unwarrantable," he would have done all which appears to us to have been necessary for the confutation of Mr. Godwin's charge. comment Mr.Maltby has quoted a passage from Rosenmuller, containing a upon the leading expressions contained in the text in question,which Mr. Maltby considers as strengthening his own observations. In this opinion, we feel ourselves unable to acquiesce.-On the contrary, the comment of Rosenmuller seems to us so satisfactorily to support the view we have taken, that we cannot refrain from subjoining it. ‘O wis:vtas xai Batıodu] Qui religioHis meæ doctrinam susceperit, et haptismo se ei obstrinxerit. More9:19 hic, ut sæpè, significat religionis doctrinam cognitam suscipere cum assensu, et constanti proposito studioque præceptis cjus obsequendi. Vid. Act. ii. 44. iv. 32. xvi. 34. Tit. iii. 8. Hinc ipsa religionis doctrina nominatur ☎ısı5 1 Tim. iv. 1. Epist. Jud. ver. 3, 20. Est igitur hic iseve idem quod μabnteveσbar, discipulum sectatoremque Christi fieri, Matt. xxviii. 19. canTera] Salutem consequetur; liberabitur á panis peccatorum, à superstitione, erro ribus et vitiis; ad cognitionem veritatis, ad veram virtutem et felicitatem æternam perveniet. Hæc enim omnia ista vox complecti solet. de uwishtas] Non autem credens Evangelio, quod ipsi annunciatum fuerit. xarampitveras] Retentione peccatorum,et suppliciis æternis majoribus, quam quæ eos manent, quibus hæc doctrina non est annunciata. We must not conclude our account of the chapter under consideration,without mentioning the energy, animation, and point, which are displayed in the passage, in which the Author exposes the conduct of Mr. Godwin, in espousing the cause of those prejudiced, selfish, bigotted, and hypocritical persecutors, the Scribes and Pharisees, in opposition to the just and holy indignation of Jesus Christ. The eighth and last chapter of this valuable and interesting work contains "a View of the Defects of the Evidence in favour of the Mahometan Religion:" the expediency of which view arises from the success of the Arabian impostor having been confounded, by the designing or the unthinking, with the success which attended the propagation of the Gospel. Mr. Maltby adverts to some of the most discriminating circumstances under which the prophet of Arabia was enabled to execute his portentous designs, which he collects from unquestionable sources of information. And in order to discover the marked and distinct lines of separation between the preaching of the Gospel and the propagation of the Coran, he considers, 1st. The peculiar circumstances of the times in which Mahomet appeared; 2dly. The temper and genius of the people to whom he addressed himself; and 3dly. His own natural and acquired advantages. Of the observations contained in this chapter, some appear to be novel, many to be striking, and all to be just. The uniform result of them is a confirmation of the divine authority of the Gospel. By the combination of deep historical research with acute and solid argumentation, the records of Mahometan imposture are made to furnish new evidence of the excellency and truth of Christianity; and thus the lustre, which the artifice of a bold deceiver, and the superstitious credulity of his followers, have united to throw around the crescent, serves only to irradiate the superior glories of the cross. In closing our review of this work, we are reminded of the feelings with which we closed our perusal of it. They were those of respect for the author of it, and an increased conviction of the truth of that religion, which he has so successfully endeavoured to illustrate. It has been our wish to recommend this work to the perusal of our readers, by a summary account of its contents, and a just display of its merits. At the same time, we have stated our objections to the justness of some of the author's sentiments and the accuracy of some of his expressions: and in doing this, we felt no reserve or hesitation, since we have had reason given us to believe, that our remarks referred to a man, who would expect at our hands, candid criticism, and not unqualified panegyric; and who would infinitely prefer the advancement of the interests of truth, by a faithful correction of his errors, to the obtaining from us, or from any man, the very questionable praise, of having been the author of a faultless production. LIX. The Evidence for the Authenticity and Divine Inspiration of the Apocalypse stated; and vindicated from the Objections of the late Professor F. D. Michaelis; in Letters addressed to the Reverend Herbert Marsh, B.D. F. R. S. 8vo. pp. 92. London, Hatchard, 1802. THIS seasonable publication will afford us the opportunity, which we should have been happy to have taken earlier, of applying something of a corrective to the rash liberties which the German critic has taken with the Sacred Scriptures, and of expressing, in rather stronger terms, the censure which we passed upon his celebrated performance, the translation of which into our own language has been lately completed by Mr. Marsh. Although the argument contained in this work applies but to one book in the Sacred Canon, the result of it will justly extend to the criticisms of Michaelis on all the rest; and whatever deference the reader may be disposed to pay to the authority of so profound a scholar on the very subject of his profession, he will suspect that the evidence upon which other books are rejected or questioned, has as little foundation as that which ́ has produced the rejection of the Apocalypse. The anonymous author has discovered so much candour and good sense in the prosecution of his object, that we have no doubt a due regard will be paid to his arguments by the person to whom they are particularly addressed; and that the learned translator of Michaelis, when he completes his notes upon that author, will give his readers reason to form a very different conclusion concerning the book in question, from that to which the original work would lead them. The letters, of which the work now to be examined is composed, are ten in number. The first professes high respect for the character and talents of Mr. Marsh; the second lays down the method which the author intends to pursue in his proposed inquiry, and which, in our opinion, is distinguished not more by its judiciousness than by its originality. "In the following letters," says he, (p. 4) "I propose to review the evidence which has been adduced, for the authenticity and divine inspiration of the Apocalypse; to add thereto some few collections of my own, and occa * See our review of that work, Number VII. p. 435 et seq. sionally to make remarks on those observations of Michaelis, which tend to invalidate it. and internal. The external is, that which is derived from credible witnesses, from the early writers and fathers of the Church. The internal is, that which results from a perusal of the book." "This evidence divides itself into external After observing that Michaelis seems to have approached the external evidence for the Apocalypse with a prejudice against it, derived from his opinion of its internal evidence; and that he had himself experienced two opposite prepossessions upon the subject originating from the same cause, by the first of which he was tempted to depreciate, by the second to overvalue the external evidence, he proceeds— "But in our examination of the external evidence we ought, so far as human infirmity may permit, to be free from any such partiality; and to forget, for a season, our previous ternal. The two evidences, external and interconceptions of the weight of its evidence innal, should be kept apart; they should not be suffered to incorporate; each should be considered with reference to itself only. After ly and properly be brought together, and be which separate examination, they may useful. allowed their due influence upon each other." Agreeably to this rule, the originality of which principally consists in the distinctness with which it is laid down, and the prominency and importance which are given to it, the author enters first upon a view of the external evidence: and the first point which he endeavours to establish by that evidence is, the time when the book in question was written. Here he justly gives the preference to the testimony of Irenæus, which, in opposition to a novel interpretation of that testimony by Michaelis, he makes it evident, refers the apocalyptical vision to the latter part of With Mill and Domitian's reign. Lardner, therefore, and other critics, he places the date of the Apocalypse in the year 96 or 97. In his fourth letter our author writes: "Having ascertained the time in which the Apocalypse was written, we may proceed to review the external evidence, which affects its authority; for we shall now be enabled to appreciate such testimony, by considering its approximation to the time when the book was published." unjustifiable, that Ignatius is silent upon the subject. Some instances our author has produced, and Jortin will supply an addition of two to the list.* The testimony of Ignatius is followed by those of Polycarp, Papias, and Justin Martyr; Athenagoras, the Gallic churches, Melito, and Theophilus; Apollonius, Clemens of Alexandria, and Tertullian. These writers, together with Hippolytus and Origen, are exhibited, according to their respective dates, in a biographical chart, that the reader may at one view be able to estimate the weight and value of the evidence adduced. And during this period, the author observes, there is not one writer, no father, no ecclesiastical author, who seems to have questioned the authenticity of the Apocalypse. Yet there was ground then for the same objections, which afterwards induced some persons to reject it, in the third and fourth centuries. (p. 39.). Certain heretics, however, rejected it. Of that number was Marcion. But it is justly observed, that while, by this mean, he establishes the existence of the book, his known character secures it against any injurious consequence from his rejection of it. The Alogi likewise, a sect which derived its name from an aversion to the term Logos, denied the divine authority of the Apocalypse, and attributed it to Cerinthus. But their rejection of that book deserves as little regard as the unreasonable prejudice upon which it was founded. He then sets himself to state the evi- as to render it an assertion altogether dence which the early Christian writers afford to the authenticity of the Apocalypse, and, transgressing a little upon chronological order, produces for his first testimony Irenæus. For this ir regularity, however, he makes a sufficient apology by observing-"There are many testimonies which, in point of time, are antecedent to this of Irenæus, but none so comprehensive, so positive, and direct." (p. 21.) Indeed, from the intimacy which subsisted between him and Polycarp, he may not improperly be considered as representing the testimony of the latter. And in what estimation that testimony is to be held may be determined from the circumstance that Polycarp had conversed with St. John, and was by the same Apostle ordained to the see of one of the cities particularly addressed in the apocalypse.* The rest of the testimonies in favour of that book, are adduced in chronological order; and Ignatius stands at the head of them. The supposed silence of this bishop and martyr, upon the subject of the Apocalypse, induced Michaelis to reckon upon him as an evidence against it but it is well replied, that the circumstances under which the only au. thentic writings of Ignatius were penned would of themselves be sufficient to account for his silence, even supposing him to have admitted the authenticity of the controverted book. "He was a prisoner," says the letter writer, upon travel, guarded by a band of soldiers, whom, for their ferocity, he compares to leopards, and by them hurried forward in his passage from Antioch to Rome, there to be devoured by wild beasts." (p. 23.) Regular and explicit references to books of Scripture could hardly be expected under such circumstances; yet unfavourable as those circumstances were, there are some expressions made use of by the martyr, which can hardly be interpreted on any other supposition, than that he had seen, and acknowledg ed, the authenticity of the Apocalypse: the allusions, at least, are so probable, See Eus. Hist. Ecc. v. 20, or Christian Observer, No. IX. p. 567. col. i. note, and Tert. de Pres. § xxxi. Christ. Observ. No. 11. Letter the seventh details the external testimony which is obtained from Hippolytus and Origen in favour of the part of Scripture, whose authority is here defended; and the evidence upon the subject is summed up in the following words: "I shall now request my readers to review the the biographical chart presented to them in page 38. They will there observe, that by the addition which is made to the writers of polytus and Origen, the evidence is carried the second century, by the testimonies of Hip * Remarks on Ecc. History, vol. i. pp. 37— 39, where the author professes to collect some allusions to Scripture in Ignatius, not to be found in the margin of the Patres Apostolici. 5 A down 150 years from the first publication of the Apocalypse. This evidence is abundant, (surprisingly so, considering the mysterious nature of the book); it is constant and uninterrupted. At no time does it depend upon any single testimony: many writers testify at the same period; and these witnesses are nearly all the great names of ecclesiastical antiquity. To their evidence, which is for the most part positive and express, no contradictory testimony of an external kind has been opposed. (p. 47, 48 ) Upon the whole," he adds, "the candid examiner cannot but perceive, that the external evidence for the authenticity and divine inspiration of the Apocalypse is of preponderating weight; and that Michaelis is by no means justifiable in representing it, when placed in the scale against the contrary evidence, as suspended in equipoise. It is a complete answer to the assertions of his third section, to affirm, (and we now see that we can truly affirm it) that the authenticity of the book was never doubted by the Church, during the first century after it was published." (p. 49.) In the eighth letter are discussed the testimonies of subsequent writers, and as affording external evidence in favour of the Apocalypse, even its impugner, Dionysius of Alexandria, forms one of the number. And with respect to the supposed rejection of it by Luther, the author observes, "THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND was blessed with the privilege of settling her articles, and her canon of Scripture, at a later period; at a time when the testimonies of the ancients, concerning the books of Scripture, were more accurately ascertained, and when the first crude notions of the honest reformers had been ma tured into safe opinions, by the progress of time and truth. But the Church of England had no hesitation to place the book of Apocalypse in her sacred canon; and, I doubt not, her sons will continue to supply her with numerous and irrefragable reasons for retaining it." (pp. 61, 62.) The internal evidence comes next to be considered; and the inquiry, under this view, the author represents as two fold-1st. Whether from the internal form and character of the Apocalypse, it appears to be a book of divine inspiration. 2dly. Whether it appears to have been written by the Apostle John. Here it is justly admitted, that the disagreement of writers upon the interpretation of the prophecies, contained in the book under examination, prevent the fufilment of those prophecies from being produced as an argument in its favour: although to those these researches, I feel myself justified in "As I am not altogether unpractised in making this general assertion, that, upon comparing the Apocalypse with the acknowledged books of divine Scripture, I have almost universally found the very same notions, imother Sacred Scriptures; yet not delivered in ages, representations, and divine lights, as in such a manner, as to be apparently copied from other inspired writers, but from some original prototype, the same which these other writers also seem to have copied. There is, in short, between the writer of the Apocalypse, and his predecessors in the sacred office of prophet, that concordia discors, that agreement in matter, but difference in manner, which is observed in painters, who de. lineate and colour in different stations from the same original object; and this will be allowed to be a strong internal evidence of the divine original of the Apocalypse." (p. 64.) The doctrines of this sacred book are likewise vindicated, and proved to be conformable to the general tenor of acknowledged Scripture. To the objection of obscurity, the answer is obvious and decisive. The exceptions which were first made to this book in the third century by Caius, a presbyter of Rome, and are detailed in the writconsidered under five heads, and their ings of Dionysius of Alexandria, are amination occupies the greater part of invalidity is demonstrated. This exthe last letter. And after some observations designed to prove that the author of the Apocalypse is the same person as the Apostle and Evangelist of the same name, the writer of this vindication concludes: "We may, therefore, I trust, fairly conclude, that to the impregnable force of exterthe divine claims of the Apocalypse, a considnal evidence, which has been seen to protect erable acquisition of internal evidence may be added; or, at least, that this avenue, by which |