confidence once lost is never restored, and where the wish to find Christianity false, exists, a false argument brought forward in its defence is immediately laid hold of as if the only argument; and the consequence is triumphantly (though erroneously) drawn from the weakness of the advocate to the weakness of the cause.

It also deserves consideration, as to whether it be altogether a safe method either to leave the proof of Christianity, merely applicable to one sect, or to exhibit it deprived of all its most striking characters for the sake of gaining general concurrence. What is Christianity in the hands of the Romanist-what is it in the hands of the modern Socinian? As held by the former, it cannot be defended by any direct course of reasoning-as held by the latter, it is questionable whether it is worth defending at all. In the former case the utmost ingenuity must be employed to produce any thing like a tolerable apology for the gross corruption of that Church. In the latter, the apologist has, indeed, less labour, but he holds out nothing sufficient to impress the mind with a due sense of the importance of the inquiry. Relying upon the strength of the basis on which it stood, the Romish Church has added so much to the fabric of Christianity that the whole edifice totters, and would long ago have fallen, but for the rock on which it was originally founded. It has, however, been reserved to modern times to discover the noble art of sustaining the whole by separating the parts. How sincerely some believe the great mass of the Christian world grossly credulous, is sufficiently apparent from the gravity with which we are told, as each support of our Religion is withdrawn, that it stands the firmer. No doubt when the whole shall have been completely undermined, the consolation will then be given us that it is balanced on a point, but that we need be under no alarm, for as the whole has no substance, it will safely veer with every fresh gust of popular opinion.

The Gradual Developement of the Office, Titles, and Character of Christ in the Prophets, a Proof of their Inspiration. By ALLEN COOPER, A.M., of Oriel College, Oxford. 8vo. Pp. 74. 4s. London. Rivingtons. 1825.

THIS little treatise appears to have been suggested by a hint from Mr. Benson, in his Hulsean Lectures for 1820. We

have read it with much pleasure, and feel desirous of recommending it to others. "The gradual developement of the Christian scheme of redemption" has been often remarked; and there is not, perhaps, a more interesting occupation than that of attentively watching the regular opening of this wonderful plan, the shining forth of that light which first dawned in the eastern gate of Paradise, and spread and brightened by slow degrees, till it burst upon half the world at the rising of the Sun of Righteousness; and (if it may be permitted us to continue the metaphor) after struggling with clouds and mists, raised by the powers of darkness, the rulers of this world, shall hereafter attain a meridian splendour, and send forth its beams of glory from one end of heaven to the other. This has been often contemplated by the eye of devotion till all the best affections of the heart have kindled into rapture, and it may be pointed out to the youthful scholar in heavenly things as that, than which nothing is better calculated to strengthen his belief, to warm his piety, and open to his understanding the mystery of godliness.

Mr. Cooper, however, has applied the subject in a different manner from that in which perhaps it is usually seen; his ob ject being to bring it in aid of the evidence of inspiration, by shewing that each new circumstance, added successively to those which had been advanced before, proves a new accession of Divine assistance. "The infinite wisdom and goodness of God," says he," are strikingly manifested in this very circumstance, that no single Prophet could have borrowed the description which he added, from what had been written before." It was not merely the brightening and strengthening of that light which first shone; it was not that the darkness was gradually dispelled; or, to drop the metaphor, that the knowledge which had been vouchsafed was gradually confirmed, and fresh assurances continually given of the truth of what had been revealed, and thereby fresh confidence added to the hopes of the faithful. But at every stage something entirely new was presented to the believer; some object met his eye which neither he, nor the person who was commissioned to reveal it, could have deduced from what had been before made known. Each circumstance thus added must have been, therefore, either a pure fiction on the part of the Prophet, or it must have been supernaturally communicated to him; and thus the proof of its fulfilment becomes a proof of the Prophet's inspiration.

"This then," Mr. Cooper observes, "appears to be a new feature in prophecy, in order to prove which, it will be necessary, in the first

NO. VI. VOL. III.

X

place, to review the various prophecies which regard the Messiah; at the same time noting, not only each prophecy, but its actual fulfilment; secondly, to point out the circumstances which each prophet has added to those of his predecessors; and, thirdly, to shew that these circumstances were neither necessarily implied, nor could be gathered by inference from what had been written before."

In pursuance of the plan here proposed, Mr. C. sets before his readers the predictions delivered by the prophets according to the date of each; omitting those which are said to have been uttered by the Almighty himself, as " affording no proof of the position" here to be established. The enumeration begins with Jacob's prophecy of "Shiloh," proceeds to that of Moses respecting a "Prophet" like himself, and thence to David, Isaiah, Micah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the three who lived after the captivity in Babylon; setting down the words of each prophecy, and the fulfilment of each in separate columns, and commenting upon them as they are brought forward, with much good sense and good feeling. The quotations from the New Testament might, perhaps, be shortened, and a réference given to a corresponding passage in another Gospel. With regard to the passages taken from the Old Testament, they are of course those which have been quoted repeatedly, and ought to be familiar to every one. We are not quite sure (if we were to examine them with great strict, ness) that the concluding prediction in the prophet Haggai, or the first in Malachi should have been inserted. If the former of these is to find a place,-it is that which points out Zerubbabel as a type of Messiah,—the prophecy of Jonah should not be omitted.

Our author, having noted down each prophecy and its fulfilment, and pointed out the circumstances added by each, proceeds in the last place to shew that these circumstances could not have been inferred from what had been written before. And here we cannot do better than extract a passage, as a fair specimen of the mode of argument which is adopted in respect of each prophet. We will take the first which

occurs.

"As the first proof of this position, let us refer to the prophecy of Moses. He foretels that God would raise up to the people of Israel a Prophet' like unto himself; and that to him the children of Israel should be bound to hearken. Now the only human record that we know of, to which Moses could refer, was that of the patriarch Jacob. From this he could not have inferred that the Shiloh' should be a Prophet. For the office of the Shiloh,' in whatever sense we understand it, whether as one sent, or as a Peacemaker, did not include

that of Prophet. It was not necessary that he to whom the gathering of the people should be, that is, (as we have already explained it) who should call the Gentiles to the knowledge of the truth, should be gifted with the power of foretelling future events: neither did it follow that he should resemble Moses in the peculiar fact of his giving a new law; nor from what Jacob had said, that he should come from amongst the children of Israel. The circumstance, then, added by Moses of the coming of a Prophet' like unto himself, could not have been implied by the description of Shiloh," at least not necessarily gathered from it by inference.

+6

"So likewise, with regard to the prophecies of the inspired king of Israel. The office of Shiloh' or 'Prophet,' could not suggest to his mind that he should be the Son of God,' nor that, as the anointed of the Lord,' he should be persecuted by the kings and rulers of the earth; nor, again, that his soul should not be left in hell, neither his body see corruption.'. Still further, neither of the two descriptions to which David might have referred could necessarily suggest to him that the Shiloh or Prophet should be a ' King,' nor to the writer of the 45th Psalm, that his kingdom should be everlasting. ..... David might, perhaps, have inferred, that he who was a 'Prophet,' might also be a Priest; but the office of a Prophet did not necessarily imply eternal priesthood," &c. &c. P. 59.

The above extract will suffice to shew the style in which the argument is conducted. An useful table is added at the end, exhibiting in columns" the general Description and gradual Formation of the Messiah's character, as unfolded by the prophets, with the date of time in which each prophet lived." We shall only add that this appears to us a very fit publication for circulating among the lower orders. We should be glad to see it printed in a smaller form and introduced into parochial libraries, as it happily unites a detail of the principal predictions, and something like a running comment upon them, with evidence of their inspiration, and proof of their fulfilment.

The Turkish New Testament incapable of Defence, and the true Principles of Biblical Translation vindicated: in answer to Professor Lee's Remarks on Dr. Henderson's Appeal to the Bible Society, on the Subject of the Turkish Version of the New Testament, printed at Paris, in 1819." By the Author of the Appeal. 8vo. Pp. 322. 8s. 6d. London. Rivingtons. 1825.

t

SOME of our readers may not be acquainted with the circumstances which gave occasion to this work. They are briefly

these: Dr. Henderson, who is already known to the public by his interesting Researches on the History and Literature of Iceland, having been for a considerable time in the service of the British and Foreign Bible Society, had been commissioned to distribute the Turkish version of the New Testament, which was printed, by its orders, at Paris, in 1819, under the superintendance of Professor Kieffer. On examining this version he soon convinced himself that the Society had, as he himself says, (Pref. p. v.) "been grossly imposed upon" with regard to it, and in consequence of this he thought it his duty to represent the state of the case to that body. He made remonstrances against its distribution accordingly, but in vain; and at last he actually declared his separation from the Society, solely, as appears from his own statement, on that account.

"Under these circumstances," he says, "I conceived it to be my duty, as a last effort to arrest the progress of corruption, and provoke a keen and unslumbering jealousy over such versions as might be recommended to the Society, to publish an Appeal to the Members of that Institution, in which, besides inserting the remarks originally submitted to the Committee, I made several additional disclosures on the subject of the work, and endeavoured to bring the whole before the public in such a manner as to satisfy every candid mind, that it is altogether unworthy of those who published it, and who were afterwards advised to persist in circulating it among Mohammedan unbelievers." P. vi.

In the mean time, however, the Society must have been really convinced of the erroneous nature of the version, since, by its orders, a table of errata, and various cancels, had been prepared, which were fully agreed upon at a meeting of the Sub-Committee, held Sept. 9, 1822,' and then forwarded to Dr. Henderson.'. It was likewise resolved by the Committee, Jan. 20, 1823, that they should be sent to places whither the Turkish Testament had been forwarded.' These, Dr. Henderson says, he never saw, until accidentally, when he was at Paris, in 1824. But, notwithstanding the errata, which are said to have originally consisted of two hundred and nineteen, but were subsequently reduced, by Professor Lee and others, to the moderate number of forty-nine, Dr. Henderson still maintains this strong charge, "that there, is not a page, nor scarcely a verse in the volume that does not contain something or other of an objectionable nature." (Pref. p. xiii. sq.) It is the object of the present publication to demonstrate more fully the serious objections which still lie against this version of the New Testament, and to reply to Professor Lee's "Re