its overthrow has been so often attempted, is not so unguarded as its adversaries imagine.

"But the grand bulwark of its internal evidence has not yet been sufficiently explored. The diligence of future inquirers will, I trust, evince to the world, from a direct proof of the actual accomplishment of the apocalyptical prophecies, that the work is from God.

"In the mean time, we may trust for its protection to those forces stationed in the out

works, which it has been our present object to review." (pp. 90, 91.)

In thus extending our remarks upon this work, we have been influenced more by its importance than its bulk. We consider it as important, not only because it rescues from undeserved condemnation a very valuable part of the sacred volume, but more especially, because its influence will extend to the whole body of canonical scripture,

and will serve as a check to the temerity of the German Professor in other instances. We much regret that that eminent critic has so frequently employed his great authority to discredit various parts of that sacred collection, which the Christian world from the beginning have, with much deliberation, consented to receive as dictated by the divine spirit; and we hope that his work will produce its own remedy, by exciting, in this country, such a spirit of rational inquiry upon subjects of biblical literature, as will enable us to detect the fallacy of his novel and dangerous opinions. Considering the paucity of the materials with which we are furnished by the early Christian authors, who had something else to do than to write, and whose writings, scanty as they were, have been much diminished by the ravages of persecution, it is really a matter of surprise that their testimonies, still extant, to the exclusive authority of those scriptures which we receive as canonical and divine, are so decisive and satisfactory as we find them to be. And we are persuaded that to any one who approaches the subject without prejudice, and is possessed of the information necessary to entitle him to give an opinion upon it, it will appear that the circumstances of the evidence which we possess on the subject of the canon of the New Testament, are just such as the known history of the primitive church would lead us to expect, supposing, that the books

of the New Testament were the authentic productions of their professed authors; and which is a separate and a farther inquiry, that they were inspired productions. Should it be alleged, in disparagement of their pretensions, that many spurious writings were published in the first ages under the names of the Apostles, and that the primitive

Christians made little or no distinction between the one and the other; for a decisive evidence of the falsehood of this representation! we desire to refer our readers to the very valuable work of Jones on the canonical authority of the New Testament.* They will there see that a wide distinction was always kept up between the spurious and genuine Scriptures; and from the very existence of the former they will find cause to conclude that there must have been some originals which they were intended to imitate: all false pretensions implying some that are true.

It may serve in some degree to confirm the representation, hçre given, of the caution, which the primitive Christians exercised with respect to their Scriptures, to produce a solemn form of adjuration, found in a note at the close of a work of Irenæus, not now extant. "I adjure thee," "says he," who transcribest this book, by our Lord Jesus Christ, and by his glorious appearance, when he

"We take this opportunity of exposing one instance of Dr. Priestley's hardihood of assertion, which we do not remember to have ever been noticed. In his Letters to Dr. Horsley (p. 23.) he produces the authority of Jones as confirming his favourite opinion of the identity of the Nazarenes and the Ebionites. The running title is what he particularly refers to. This, it must be confessed, was in the Doctor's true method of carefully looking through books. Dr. Horsley, however, not having seen the work of Jones, which, before its re-impression at Oxford, was become very scarce, had not the means of contradicting his opponent's assertion. But who would ima gine after all, that the opinion concerning the identity of the two sects above mentioned, in which Toland was Dr. Priestley's predecessor, is the very opinion which Jones undertakes to confute? See New and Full Method, &c. vol. i. pp. 309, 310. particularly vol. iii. p. 139. Oxford ed. In the last place referred to, the author writes, speaking of the Nazarenes and Ebionites "Though they were certainly two different sects (and not the same persons, as Mr. Toland, according to his old way of blundering,would have them (o be), &c."

shall judge the quick and the dead, that thou compare what thou transcribest, and correct it carefully by this copy from which thou transcribest it, and likewise that thou transcribe this adjuration, and insert it in thy copy." This is recorded by Eusebius, as he himself affirms, to hold up to the admiration of his age the illustrious example of care and vigilance exhibited by the primitive Christians.

LX. Remarks on "Michaelis's Introduction to

the New Testament, vols. III. IV. Trans. lated by the Rev. Herbert Marsh, and aug. mented with Notes." By way of Caution to Students in Divinity. 8vo. pp. 43. London. White. 1802.

Letters to the Anonymous Author of Remarks on Michaelis, and his Commentator, relating especially to the Dissertation on the Origin and Composition of our Three First Canonical Gospels. By HERBERT MARSH, B. D. F.R.S. Fellow of St. John's College, Cambridge. 8vo. pp. 39. London, Rivingtons, 1802.

THE former of these pamphlets proposes. to guard students in divinity against what the anonymous author conceives to be, the injurious tendency of some parts of the work of Michaelis, and the notes of his Translator, especially the Dissertation of the latter, on the Origin and Composition of our Three First Canonical Gospels. The author prefaces his examination of this work by a just commendation of critical researches which, nevertheless, he represents with equal justice as being, when pursued to excess, liable to some abuse, and attended with some danger.

"They are so," he adds, "if we suffer the mind to be too much led away with them, and to be drawn off from greater objects; an error which it is always apt to incur from becoming enamoured of its own present pursuits, and wholly engrossed by them. Let us consider that the general perfection and authority of the Scriptures depend upon other arguments, and stand, I trust, upon so firm a basis, as not to be shaken, though multitudes of such little circumstances should remain unaccounted for. It is satisfactory to the divine and the scholar to clear them up; but if we suffer embarrass

*Eus. Hist. Ecc. lib. v. cap. xx. Και ταυτα ωφελίμως προς εκείνου λελέχθω, ὑφ' ἡμῶν τα ίςορείσθω, ως αν εχοιμεν αριςον σπεδαιότατης επι μελείας τις αρχαιες εκείνες και οντως ἱερες ανδρας ὑποδειγμα,

ments arising from hence so to dwell upon our minds as to teach us to think less reverently of the sacred books than before, I think I may venture to say, that we raise them above their proper level." (p. 3.

The first general division of the work is, "Of Harmonies." Here the author contends for the consistency of slight inaccuracies concerning time and place with the notion of inspiration; and justly reprobates the assertion of Michaelis, that if the Evangelist referred a particular transaction to two different days, he would instantly give up the inspiration of one or both. Under the next head "Of St. Luke's Gospel," he passes a censure, equally just, upon another rash position of the same author, by which inspiration is denied to any other than an Apostle. (p. 20.)

But the principal subject of this publication is the hypothesis of Mr. Marsh respecting the origin of the three first Gospels.* And in opposition to the representation of that author, who con. tends for the simplicity of his hypothesis, the present writer endeavours to expose its complexity, by tracing it through its several and multiplied gradations.

'He,” (Mr. Marsh,) “supposes, 1st. That there existed a common Hebrew document. 2dly, That this original document, before it had received any additions, was translated into Greek. Sdly, That the original afterwards received additions of two several kinds; so as to form two copies, each having additions, differing from those of the other. 4thly, tional circumstances, and additional transac

That farther additions were made, and involv ed with the former, so as to form three different copies, the originals of the three Gospels of St. Matthew, St. Luke, and St. Mark. I abbreviate this, according to the author's own table of the genealogy of these transcripts, as he calls it, (being in truth a long and difficult pedigree,) for the reader must see that it might be drawn out into many more articles, if every step of the process were to be stated separately. But we have not yet done: for, 5thly, another supplemental Hebrew document (Tvæμoogia) must be supposed, which was common to two of the Evangelists, but was first divided into two different copies. 6thly, and lastly, The Gospel of St. Matthew, which we now have, was a translation from the original, with insertions of those of St.

*See an abridged view of that hypothesis in our Review of Marsh's Michaelis, No. Vil. p. 435, &c.

consideration may be regarded as totally independent of historical evidence, the origin of the Gospels in question, for which it is intended to account, is a matter of fact; and the evidence upon it is to be estimated by the same rules as those which we apply to evidence upon every other matter of fact. The proper evidence of facts is external or historical, and this must be either totally wanting, or in the highest degree defective, to permit us to decide our judgment by internal evidence of any kind, or of any degree of probability. What is almost the whole history of the world but a series of extraordinary events? And what is understood by the term "extraordinary," but that the internal evidence pronounces strongly against them? There is a very strong presumption," says Bishop Butler, "against common speculative truths, and against the most ordinary facts, before the proof of them; which yet is overcome by almost any proof. There is a presumption of millions to one against the story of Cesar, or of any other man, &c. &c."* This observation will apply perhaps, a fortiori, to extraordinary events.

Since then it is absolutely incumbent upon us, if we would come to a right decision upon any subject, to avail our selves of the entire evidence which can be procured upon it; since in every case of contending evidence we must invariably submit to the superior; since the proper evidence of fact is of an external kind; and since many facts, highly improbable in themselves, are established beyond all reasonable controversy by a slight degree of external evidence, it will follow as an unavoidable consequence, that if the partial internal evidence, which the hypothesis of Mr. Marsh affords to the particular origin which that hypothesis ascribes to the three first Gospels, be opposed by other evidence of superior strength, the hypothesis must be proportionally weakened, and may be completely overturned. And that opposing evidence, in some degree of this description, does exist, we make no hesitation to affirm. In proof of this assertion, however, the

grounds of which it would be impracticable to state in a short compass, it will be sufficient to refer in a general way, to the elaborate and accurate work of Lardner on the Credibility of the Gospel History. But we wish the testimony of Irenæus to be particularly attended to; because he is not only, with the rest of the ancients, totally silent with respect to any such origin as Mr. Marsh ascribes to the three first of our Gospels, but has given considerable effect to that negative argument, by positively attributing each of them to their respective authors.* Neither ought we, in estimating the value of his testimony, to forget his intimacy with Polycarp, whom he affirms not only to have been taught by the Apostles, and to have conversed with many who had seen Christ, but also to have been, by the Apostles, appointed Bishop of the Church of Smyrna.

We

Upon the whole, then, we feel our selves justified in considering the hypothesis of Mr. Marsh as a dangerous speculation, tending to unsettle the foundation of our faith, and as unsupported by any evidence which ought to satisfy those who are accustomed to try a cause upon its entire merits. esteem it likewise no less the privilege, than the duty of Christians, to rest in the truth of the general fact, of which they have sufficient evidence, that the Scriptures in question were written by persons divinely commissioned and divinely instructed; without considering themselves under any obligation to account for their origin, or the peculiar mode and circumstances of their composition.

LXI. A Sermon, preached in the Parish Church of Walsall, in the County of Stafford, at the Archdeacon's Visitation, August 12, 1802. By the Rev. EDWARD COOPER, Rector of Hamstall Ridware, Chaplain to the Right Hon. the Earl of Courtown, and late Fellow of all Souls College, Oxford. Published by Desire of the Archdeacon and the Clergy. London, Cadell and Davies, 1802. pp. 30. THERE are, evidently, two extremes in religion, into which men, in all ages, have been liable to fall. On the one

hand, we are in danger of coldness and lukewarmness; and on the other, of enthusiasm and extravagance. In the one case, we deceive ourselves by a professed attachment to correctness and propriety, and to all that is moral and practical in Christianity. In the other, we err no less by too highly estimating our zeal for something which we has tily dignify with the name of the Gospel: and by substituting a religion of mere feelings and impulses, in the place of those various fruits of the spirit, which are the only true marks of grace.

The Author of this Sermon very judiciously observes, that in opposing one of these evils, we are extremely apt to be carried into the other; and his object is to warn those who contend against the Antinomianism and other errors of the present day, not to surrender nor lose sight of any one particle of those truths which constitute the true Gospel

of Christ.

We would here remark, that the error against which he guards us, is that into which many well-meaning ministers of the Church of England appear to us to have fallen, at the period subsequent to that great ebullition of fanaticism, which took place in the time of Cromwell. The excesses of enthusiasm in that day, called undoubtedly for strong opposition, but the zeal to repress them carried some good men too far in an opposite direction. Many individuals of little soundness in the faith, ranged themselves under the standard of these respectable persons; and to be an opposer of fanaticism became, in the eyes of some, a sufficient test of being a true son of the Church. Our readers will make their own application of this observation to the circumstances of the present age.

The subject of this Sermon is so very important, and is discussed by Mr. Cooper with so much perspicuity and judgment, that we shall make no apology for presenting our readers with some large extracts from it.

The text is, 1 Tim. iv. 16. Take heed unto thyself and unto thy doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this, thou shalt both save thyself, and them that

hear thee.

Mr. Cooper observes, that

"It is natural for men to look on the period of the world in which they are placed, as the most momentous, and to estimate the dangers to which they are exposed, as the most formidable," but yet, that" we may be justified in regarding the times in which we live as fraught with some circumstances of peculiar danger to the interest of sound Christianity. del, on the other by the enthusiast, both We are assaulted on the one side by the infiequally hostile to the cause of truth; the for. mer endeavouring by his sophistry to under

mine the doctrines of our faith, the latter

bringing them into discredit by the extravagant lengths to which he carries them, and by the perverse, and even immoral purposes to which he applies them..

"It is not, however, merely by prevailing with us to embrace destructive tenets, that the teachers of them may prove a snare. There is a danger, lest in our zeal to oppose them, we ourselves should be carried into a which, in our contests with enthusiasts, we contrary extreme: And this is a danger, to are peculiarly exposed. Justly grieved at the pernicious use which they make of the truths of our holy religion, and anxiously bent on counteracting the fatal effects of their extrainstead of pointing out the perverseness and vagant pretensions; we are strongly tempted, fallacy of their conclusions, and of shewing the plain, practical inferences, which flow from the doctrine in question, insensibly to shift a little from the foundation itself: and thus from a fear of having the truth made an instrument of evil, to keep it altogether in the back ground, or else to bring it forward in such a modified and amended shape, as we think will render it less liable to misconstruction and abuse." (p. 8-10)

Mr. Cooper then proceeds to specify the chief points in which there is danger of our deviating from the soundness of Christian doctrine; and of these we shall give a succinct view in his own words.

"First then let me call your attention to that grand fundamental doctrine of the Gospel, and of our Church, justification by faith alone: or, as it is expressed in our article, that We are accounted righteous before God, only for the merits of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by faith, and not for our own works and deservings. Now, perhaps, there is not one of the glorious truths of revelation, which is more frequently turned to a

bad use, and made the instrument of greater evil, than this. Men of corrupt minds have raised on it the most monstrous and abominable systems: not ashamed publicly to teach that, since we are justified by faith alone, good works are no longer necessary to salvagations to morality and holiness, but even tion; and thus not only weakening the oblimaking that, which is the Glory of the Gospel, the avowed foundation of profligacy and