service with the preceding. He confesses, however, "the suspicion of possible error;" and we have no doubt that such of his readers as have no favourite hypothesis to support, will deem that suspicion well grounded. After all, could the rule which Mr. Granville Sharp has proposed, be fully established, it would remain to enquire, what Jesus and his apostles intended by the term rovno-and we are convinced that sober criticism would find it to be no more than the personification, after the oriental manner, of evil; or, most commonly, a human adversary, an enemy to the gospel, a perverter of his brethren, an injurious, or a vicious individual; or, the unbelieving part of the Jewish nation, the unrelenting persecutors of the Christian name. ART. XII. Jerusalem; or, an Answer to the following Enquiries: What is the Etymology of the word Jerusalem? and, Is there any Connection between Salem and je rusalem? By GRANVILLE SHARP. Wherein is shewn, that the true and literal Interpretation of the Word "Jerusalem," comprehends two very opposite and distinct National Characters, peculiarly applicable to Two equally opposite and distinct, though very disproportionate Parts of the Hebrew Nation; Characters which are unquestionably expressed in the original Name of their own capital City,though this has never before been explained, it seems, either by Jews or Christians, 8vo. pp. 64. THE age and character of Mr. G. Sharp entitle every thing, which comes from his pen, to respectful attention; but we regret, that we cannot always commend his speculations as deserving of public esteem. Such is the case with that now before us-in which there is much more of fancy than of truth-of accommodation to pre-conceived opinion, than of sound scriptural criticism. Of the word Jerusalem he gives a double etymology. Salem, in both cases, he interprets as signifying peace, and Jeru, he supposes in one case to mean, to reject, in the other to teach. The greater part of the Hebrew nation have, almost from the earliest period of its existence to this very hour, continued to verify the prophetic intimation contained in the word, according to the first of these etymologies, and a small chosen body is destined to accomplish the great purpose, presignified in the latter. Mr. Sharp, in order to prove these things, takes a pretty full view of the Jewish history, from very remote periods, to the transactions of the Jewish sanhedrim at Paris; during the whole of which they have, by their depravity, and violation of the law of God, cast away the peace which they might have possessed, and brought upon themselves nu merous and heavy calamities. In every period, however, a small part of Israel have preserved their allegiance to Jehovah, and by their example, taught others to fear his name. Some there were who even received the Prince of Peace, and engaged in his service. From the capital of Palestine the doctrine of peace proceeded, and in that doctrine all nations are yet to be instructed; and, by its influences, all the kindreds of the earth are to be enlightened. Such is a brief sketch of this fanciful little work— if our readers wish for more, we commend to them the pamphlet itself. ART. XIII. A Dissertation upon the Logos of St. John, comprehending the Substance of Sermons preached before the University of Oxford. By RICHARD LAWRENCE, LL D. Rector of Mersham, Kent, 8vo. pp. 83. THE introduction of St. John's ry, furnished an ample field for Gospel, has, for more than a centu- controversial, investigation. This tract assuredly will not end the controversy; but we think that it will contribute to bring some of its leading points into a more determinable state. The author writes with full conviction: to this we do not object; but he also writes with considerable superciliousness towards the opponents of his principles, for which we see neither cause nor reason. We shall lay before our readers such a view of the tract as will enable them to see the tendencies of our author's reasonings; referring to the tract itself those who think it likely to contribute to give them new or clearer ideas on the subject. The first chapter is occupied with a discussion of the various opinions which have been advanced "respecting the term Aoyos;" by which we presume that Dr. L. means, the reason of the evangelist's employing it. jects, and which we should suppose The mimra dii (or as Dr. L. writes it, memra dadonai,) of the Targumists first comes under consideration. The author decidedly adopts the opinion that, in its general use, the expression is indicative of a divine person; but he does not seem to incline to the opinion of many, who consider it as "intended to designate the second Person in the Trinity, who, becoming incarnate, lived and died for us, (of which, perhaps, the Targumists themselves might have had, at best, but indistinct, or even incorrect ideas.)" The necessity of supposing that the older Targumists, Onkelos and Jonathan, considered their mimra dii as distinct from the Supreme Being, can be proved only by a faithful induction of the phrases in which mimra is used by them. The later Targumim have nothing whatever to do with the question; and it is the introduction of their phraseology which has given the principal support to the hypotheses which Dr. Ljustly re to The last-mentioned point has been involved in so much obscurity by some controversial critics, tl.at we have dwelt upon it more than we intended.-The next hypothesis examined by Dr. L. is, that the term was derived from the Alexandrian philosophy of the day, as the opinion is brought forwards by Sandius and Le Clerc. The ideas of both these writers," he observes, with great justice, "are founded upon the supposition that, when St. John composed his gospel, the philosophy alluded to was generally cultivated among the Jews;" yet, "that no Jewish writings of authenticity are extant to establish this point, except those of Philo; but, as these were the production of an Alexandrian Jew, they only seem to prove that their author combined the theology of Moses with the philosophy of Alexandria, not that the Alexandrian philosophy itself flourished in Judea." Some, and among others Michaelis, suppose the use of the word to have been caused by the phraseology of the Gnostics. "It has been supposed," says Dr. L., "from a passage in Irenæus, that while St. John was still living, they not only formed a party, but stood so high in the public estimation, that he thought it necessary to oppose, in the commencement of his gospel, their peculiar errors. The opinion, that St. John opposes these "philosophs," appears to arise from a want of discrimination between the earlier and the later Gnostics; and Dr. L. seems to be but little inclined to admit it. Others trace the origin of the evangelist's employment of the Aoyos to the words in Ps. xxxiii. 6.; but Dr. L. justly considers this opinion as originating in "attending more to sound than sense. Dr. L., upon the whole, appears to incline to the opinion, that the term hoyo; is employed by the evangelist as a characteristic metonymy of the Messiah; and we imagine, that if he had examined the gospel itself, he would have found abundant justification of the opinion, and explanation of the force of the term. In the second chapter, our au thor proceeds to examine the differ ent meanings assigned to the term; and discusses, at some length, the opinion of many modern Unitarians, that by the xys the evangelist meant a divine attribute. His remarks on this subject are generally acute and satisfactory. He concludes that this hypothesis is untenable, "because oyos cannot be correctly rendered reason or wisdom, the only meanings which suit the hypothesis of an attribute, and because, even if it could be so rendered, it would still prove, in its application to the text, constrained and incoherent." We recommend the perusal of this part to the class of Unitarians referred to: but we regret that the author has passed so hastily over the opinion of Socinus, for so far from being now universally given up as indefensible," many of the modern Unitarians have adopted some of its leading principles, modifying it to make it, as they think, more accordant to the phraseology and principles of the New Testament. We had here marked for extract some sentences which manifest too much of the disposition which he attributes to the followers of Socinus, viz. that supercilious contempt for every other interpretation, which too of ten characterizes writers, who, instead of adapting opinion to scripture, adapt scripture to pre-conceived hypothesis." But, we must content ourselves with simply remarking, that it was below the dignity of his argument to use the following expression "He, or as the Unitarian will have it, she, (that is the personified attribute, wisdom,) who made the world." As the Unitarians appear to be making considerable efforts to disseminate, what they consider (with what correctness we, as critics, have little to do,) as the doctrines of the scriptures, perhaps Dr. L., before his next edition, may see ground to enter more at large into the gloss of Socinus." The last chapter is occupied with considering the signification annexed to the word ayos, by the primitive Christians. The author's statement of evidence, as far as respects the proof of the opinion that the hoyos was by them regarded as a per sonal appellative, we think, is cor- ART. XIV. An Answer to the Reply and Strictures contained in Mr. Bicheno's Supplement to the Signs of the Times: to which are added, Observations on certain Parts of an anonymous Pamphlet entitled "Remarks on a Charge delivered by the Bishop of Durham, in the Year 1806. By the Rev. G. S. FABER, B. D. Vicar of Stockton upon Tees, 8vo. pp. 106. TO those who have felt any interest in the former speculations of Mr. Faber, (and many such, to our inexpressible surprise, we have met with,) this pamphlet will be accept able. The object of it is sufficiently explained in the title-and we can give no further account of it, but at the hazard of becoming parties in the controversy, for which we have no inclination. We shall, ART. XV. A Commentary on the Prophecy of Daniel, relating to the Seventy Weeks. By the Rev. JOHN MARTEN BUTT, d. M. Student of Christ-Church, 12mo. pp. 40. ART. XVI. A Commentary upon the Last Vision of the Prophet Daniel, contained in the 10th, 11th, and 12th Chapters: being a Sequel to the Commentary on the Seventy Weeks, and completing the Author's Explanation of the Prophecies of Daniel. By the Same, 12mo. pp. 74. IN a former volume we have exhibited a specimen of this author's talents, as an interpreter of prophecy. He is as luminous in his Commentaries upon Daniel as he was in those upon the Apocalypse: and they who fancy they have received instruction from what he has written upon this latter book, will undoubt edly be vastly edified by his remarks upon its prototype. A little plain good sense, however, joined to an accurate knowledge of the history of the East, from the Babylonish captivity to the time of Christ, would prove much better commentators upon this enigmatical book. EVIDENCES OF NATURAL AND REVEALED RELIGION. ART. XVII. A New Argument for the Existence of God, foolscap 8vo. pp. 68. EVERY man who contributes in any degree to confirm the conviction of the existence of God, by adducing new evidence, or placing the old in a more striking point of view; or who inspires proper feelings, and excites to proper conduct, in regard to him, by adding to our know ledge of his character and perfection; confers an important benefit on mankind, and entitles himself to universal gratitude. Whether we may rank among the benefactors of their species, in this respect, the author of the little tract before us,we confess we have some hesitation in deciding; but whatever our opinion may be as to the success of his efforts, we clieerfully award him the merit of being actuated by the best intentions. What is call ed in the title-page a "New Argument for the existence of God," is no other than, what we esteem, the fanciful hypothesis of Berkley, the non-existence of matter, or of an external world. The writer before us is of opinion that, if it could be proved that there are not any material objects really existing without us, a stronger proof would be afforded of the existence of God, than any that can be deduced from the actual existence of a material creation; because our perceptions and sensations, which now lead us to suppose their existence must necessarily, in such case, be impressed upon our minds and feelings by a superior Being, that is, by God, whose existence would be thus de monstrated. The inference is, per haps, upon the whole, conclusive; but may we not ask, is not this endeavouring to get rid of a difficulty by the substitution of one still more intricate? is it not attempting to prove an important truth, by an ar gument which involves in itself far more difficulties than the original proposition? we are not disposed to enter into a controversy on this subject; but we think the inconclusiveness of the reasoning used by this author, in support of the Berkleian hypothesis, and he frequently manifests a degree of acuteness which would have reflected credit on his illustrious precursor, must impress his readers with a conviction, that he has not established the opinion he laboured to support, and consequently has not succeeded in adducing a new or a clear and cogent argument, in proof of the existence of the Deity. ART. XVIII. An Attempt to prove the Truth of Christianity from the Wisdom displayed in its original Establishment, and from the History of false and corrupted Systems of Religion: in a Series of Discourses preached before the University of Oxford, in the Year 1808, at the Lecture founded by the Late Rev. John Bampton, M. A. Canon of Salisbury. By JOHN PENKOSE, M. A. of Corpus Christi College. 8vo. pp. 105. “UNBELIEVERS necessarily hold that the establishment of the Christian religion may reasonably be attributed to causes simply human. They assert, that the conduct of its founders stimulated by the zeal though purified from the unsocial spirit of the Jewish system was wisely contrived, or fortunately adapted to incorporate in the profession of a common faith the Jews, to whom it was represented as the consummation of the Mosaic law, and the united nations of the Gentile world." See p. 3. This is the position which the present Bampton lecturer undertakes to controvert. Christianity he acknowledges, originally promulgated among the Jews, is professedly the consummation of the Jewish law; and it is certain also, that freed from the temporary or local peculiarities of the Mosaic institution, it offers it impartial promises to all the kindreds of the earth. By these characters he observes its permanent advancement and eventual greatness have been unquestionably consulted. He attempts, and we may add with complete success, to prave that the mode and circumstances in which the Christian religion was originally proposed, were not such, exclusively of miraculous interference, as might naturally have been expected to conciliate the immediate support either of the Heathen or of the Jew, nor such as the authors of the religion could possibly have devised with the political view of furthering its progress. Chris |