Our learned Author next treats of the Points, and other -diftinctions of Päufe among the Greeks, and fhews the origin of the prefent Points in the New Teftament, which are not to be found in the ancient Manufcripts.

In fect. 44, and 45, we have an account of the modern divifion of the New Teftament into Chapters and Verfes ;the latter of which were introduced by Robert Stephens, about 1551, as the former had been by the famous Cardinal Hugo de S. Caro, in the twelfth century. But how commodious foever these kind of divifions may be, for the more ready finding of any particular paffage, yet every intelligent Reader must agree with our Author, that they are both very injudicioufly made, without a proper regard being always paid to the fenfe and fcope of the Sacred Writer; fo that whoever reads the Bible by fingle Chapters, will be often in the dark, and at a lofs for the Apoftle's meaning, fince the, Chapters often end abruptly in the midst of a connection for inftance, Eph. iv. and Col. iii.-The Verfes also are often made to end at the wrong place, as well as the Chapters; whereby the interpretation of the facred Book has greatly fuffered, especially where the abfurd cuftom of explaining each Verfe feparately, [as if it were a diftinct Aphorifm] has prevailed.

Tho' the Tranflator of this work has, in general, performed his talk with a great appearance of accuracy, yet we would juft point out to him, a remarkable want of it, either in himfelf, or the Printer, which occurs at page 100, where he fpeaks of the first and second Epiftles to Peter, and the first, fecond, and third Epiftles to John.-Thefe flips of the pen, (for we really believe them to be nothing more) we shall hope, however, to fee rectified in the fecond edition; which will, probably, be called for, as foon as the real merit of the work is fufficiently known to the public.

From fect. 46 to fect. 73. the learned Author treats of the Syriac, Arabic, Ethiopic, Armenian, Perfic, Latin, and other old verfions of the New Teftament; and fhews the great ufe that may be made of them, by a judicious comparison thereof, both with the original, and each other.

At fect. 74, our Author fhews why we reject certain Apocryphal books, which have heretofore had their advocates: and then proceeds to thofe individual books inspired by God, which together are called the Canon of the New Testament, because they contain a Rule of Faith and Manners. We receive them, he justly obferves, as Divine Writings, unani

moufly

moufly tranfmitted to us by the Primitive Church, which was beft qualified to judge of them. But even this teftimony of the primitive Church is not the principal, nor the onl ground we have to believe their infpiration; for our Author lays down three marks as characteristical of the Divinity of a book: and concludes, that the book which has all, or any of these marks, is to be accounted Divine.-Thefe are,

I. MIRACLES. Thus

"The book which is written by one who pretends, that "either all his writings, or, at leaft, this in particular, are "divinely inspired, and corroborates fuch pretence by Mi"racles, is to be accounted divine.'

II. PROPHECIES FULFILLED.-Thus,

"When a book which pretends to be divine, contains "circumflantial Prophefies, which have been fulfilled, and not a fingle falfe Prophesy can be fhewn therein, that book must "be received as Divine, unless it contradicts Natural Re"ligion."

III. THE UNANIMOUS TESTIMONY OF THE PRIMI-
TIVE CHURCH.-For,

"As the primitive Church was better qualified to judge "which books were Divine, which not, than we; it fol"lows, that the teftimony of the primitive Church is of "great weight, if we find nothing material that contra66 venes it."

All the three above-mentioned Criteria he applies, at large, to prove the Divinity of the books of the New Teftament; but as we cannot make room for an abstract of what he fays upon all these points, we fhall felect part of his explanation of the fecond Propofition, which may serve as a specimen of his ftile, and method of argumentation.

I.

1. By Prophefies I mean," a Prediction of such Events as no human understanding could foresee."

2. The Prophefy I mean, is not of a fingle point, but a circumftantial Prophecy.'

3. But as it is poffible that many circumftances might accidentally come to pafs, the Characteristic of a Prophet is, that not one of the circumftances he foretold, remains unaccomplished. For if this fhould be the cafe, he would stand convicted of a falfhood, and therefore could not be a Meffenger from God.-It is not neceffary, indeed, that all the Prophecies of a divine book should have been already ful• filled;

filled; for they may be fulfilled hereafter. But if a Prophecy, which ought to have been already fulfilled, remains unfulfilled, we have a right to reject the Prophet.

Upon these conditions, I affert, that Prophecies fulfilled are a very probable evidence of the Divinity of a book. It • cannot be denied, that many future events depend upon fo • many thousand unknown caufes, and may be prevented, or • changed, by fo many unexpected incidents, that no one is qualified to foresee them with certainty, except only that • Great Being who furveys all the innumerable minutia of the world, which are interwoven and intangled with each ⚫ other. I do not except the greatest Angel; for whilft he is a finite Spirit, he cannot survey the whole world, which ⚫ would require faculties that are infinite. What Spirit, for inftance, was great enough, and wife enough, to know for certain, in the time of Ifaiah, that Cyrus would be born, and would be a Prince of such fuperior understanding, without accurately knowing the moft minute circumftances both ⚫ of body and mind of his then ancestors, and without knowing the reasons why the father of Cyrus, who was not then born, would marry his mother, in preference to fo many • other women? For had he married another woman, or she ⚫ another man, or had the fingle Concubitus, in which Cyrus was begot, proved unfruitful, Babylon would never have • been taken by Cyrus. What finite Spirit could foreknow, that among fo many millions of darts as were fhot at the army ⚫ of Cyrus, and whofe line of direction depended upon fo many imperceptible minutiæ, and sometimes even upon a breath of air, not one of them should hit Cyrus, and thereby convert < the Prophecy of the conqueft of Babylon into a Fable?

But it is very incredible, that a circumftantial Prediction fhould come to pafs, in all refpects, without exception, by • mere accident. If I foretell any thing accidental, without being infpired by God, there is, in the first place, against • me, the hazard of its not coming to pafs, which is at least • equal to the chance of its coming to pafs. If I add ten cir

cumftances, any man of understanding will admit, that ⚫ each circumftance may eafily be changed a thousand ways; ⚫ and each of thefe poffible changes is as probable as the cir• cumftance I foretel. Confequently, there is, in each circumftance, the chance of a thoufand to one that my Pro⚫phecy will not be fulfilled; and in the whole, it is ten thoufand to one that I prove a falfe Prophet; and this upon a ⚫ very moderate computation. But as it is poffible that no • part of the event foretold may come to pafs, it is not even fo probable that my Prophecy will be fulfilled, as that by REV. Oct. 1759. having

X

having a Ticket in a Lottery of ten thousand Tickets, I fhall win the greatest Prize; for among the ten thousand one must have the Prize, but the event which I foretel, may, with all its circumftances, fail to be accomplished.,

But as it is not abfolutely impoffible, or implies no contradiction, for a pretended Prophecy to be fortuitoufly' accomplished, the Prophecies which have been fulfilled, are only a very, probable, not strictly speaking, a certain evidence, of the Divinity of a book. If therefore the book contains any thing contradictory to Natural Religion, this evidence becomes infufficient to prove its Divinity. For the doctrines of Natural Religion reft upon a certainty, ⚫ which takes place of any thing only probable.

6

Perhaps my Reader may wonder, that I fhould prove the Divinity of fome, or rather of a fingle book of the New Teftament, by an argument which I do not advance as certain, but only as highly probable.'-To this I may venture to answer upon logical grounds, that the highest degree of • Probability differs very little, from what is properly called Certainty; and that an argument which is in the highest degree probable, is even thought equal to a Demonftration, because our limitted underftanding is not fo fubject to err in matters probable, which are generally objects of fenfe, as in an abstracted Demonftration. I know, for inftance, with Probability, that there was a King of France called Lewis the fourteenth, who waged great wars; and I know for certain, that the aggregate fquare of the two fides of a rectilinear right angled Triangle, is equal to the fquare of its Hypothenufe. Yet I fhould deferve to be confined as a Lunatic, if I entertained the leaft doubt that there was a Lewis the fourteenth; or if I do not as confidently believe this probable as the other certain truth.'

6

He then applies this Criterion to the writings of St. Pau and St. John, in particular, by fhewing that there are Prophecies already fulfilled in the Epiftles of the former, as well as in the Revelation of the latter.

As one of the most frequent feeming contradictions among the Evangelifts, relates to the circumftance of time, the fame fact being reported earlier by one than by another, he obferves, (feat. 85.) that this apparent contradiction arifes from hence, that they did not write in chronological order.-Upon which he jufily remarks, that no Hiflorian is bound to relate every thing exactly in order of time, unlefs he is writing a Journal, which is the moft tedious and difagreeable kind of Hiftory.

For

For, in writing a perfpicuous, and at the fame time an agreeable narration of facts, it is neceffary fometimes to relate, along with an event, its confequences in after-times, and when the Writer reaches thofe times, to return back to the fource of it; or he is obliged now and then to con•nect facts, which are somewhat related, though in point of time, very far afunder.'-Upon the above, and fome other rational principles, he proceeds to shew, (in the next section) how the feeming chronological contradictions in the writings. of the Evangelifts may be removed, or reconciled: and then mentions fome of the moft approved Authors upon this fubject.

The remaining part of the work contains the learned and ingenious Author's feparate Introduction to each individual book of the New Teftament, in which, he fays, he has endeavoured to be as concife and as ufeful as poffible.-But aş this article is already extended to a confiderable length, we muft conclude it, by recommending the whole of this truly valuable treatise to the attentive perufal of every theological Student, especially thofe of the younger fort, for whofe ufe it was peculiarly calculated.

Differtations, Effays, and Difcourfes. In Profe and Verfe. By Dr. Fortefcue. 2 vols. 8vo. 10s. fewed. Dodfley.

AVING, with fome labour, and much patience, perufed fo much of thefe volumes as might enable us to form a competent judgment of their Author's abilities, we made at length the difcovery of a peculiarity in his literary Character, to which few befide himfelf can boaft pretenfions. Almost every Writer we are acquainted with, has his forte and his foible; his ftrong and weak fide. The elegant Writer of Profe, is feldom excellent at Numbers; nor is it unfrequent to find Poets, who can entertain no idea of the harmony of Periods which do not end in a Jingle. Nay, fo confined are the talents of moft Authors, that the Bard who affects the file and dignity of Milton, and, like Moliere's French Cit, writes profe all his life, without knowing it, is frequently incapable of bringing words together, of a fimilar found, in the way of Rhime. Matter of an Epie Poem, an Epigram or a Sonnet would put him totally to a ftand; while the Sonnetteer, who will play you at Crambo by the

X 2

hour,