upon the rich members of a Christian congregation the propriety of condescension and courtesy to their poorer Christian brethren, I might reason in this manner, "Know ye not that your poor brethren will sit with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and Jesus, in heaven, and if this be their destination, are they unworthy of your fellowship?" Here would be an argument similar to that of the Apostle. Here a claim to an inferior would be deduced from destination to a superior honour.

A distinction has been made between the reasonings of the apostles and the doctrines on which they are founded; and it has been contended, that the doctrines may be divine though the reasoning should be inconclusive. Now I admit that the divinity of doctrines is independent of the conclusiveness of reasonings. At the same time, however, it appears to me that there was a necessity for guarding the apostles from error in reasoning as well as from error in doctrine, and that, therefore, as whatever was necessary for the perfection of the Christian dispensation would not be withholden from it, we may believe that the apostles were guarded from error in their reasonings as well as in their doctrines. If reasoning was necessary, the conclusiveness of reasoning must have been necessary. A necessity for reasoning is just the same thing as a necessity for conclusiveness of reasoning, and, therefore, if it was necessary for the apostles cessary does the to reason, it was nesively. Now, if reasoning had not been necessary, it would never have been used. It could be only a necessity for it that could suggest the adoption of it.

Perhaps, however, it will be said, that the mere statement of the doctrines upon the authority of God was sufficient-that reasoning was no further necessary than as suitable to illustrate them that reasoning was advantageous rather than necessary, and that independently of it the bare word of God would have been enough to establish the respective doctrines of Christianity. Well, let the premises be narrowed, and let it be allowed that reasonings were only useful, not necessary in the strict sense of the word, it may still be asked, " Is it

likely that he who shed such a profusion of communications upon the primitive Christians, as we see somewhat exemplified in the first Epistle to the Corinthians, would refuse to guard an apostle from error in an useful argument?" Surely in an age in which inspiration was communicated so copiously-an age in which the words of the prophet Joel, as quoted by Peter in Acts ii., were applicable, an apostle might expect, and would expect, a communication on every occasion in which it would be useful.

Our Lord promised to his disciples that the spirit of truth would abide with them, eis ton aiona. From this spirit of truth, then, the apostles would expect every assistance that would be beneficial to them and their cause. They would never believe that that spirit would desert them at a time when they were in danger of making mistakes in their reasonings.

It is true that the apostles do not say that they are divinely inspired, or divinely guarded in their reasonings. But it was not necessary to say this in an age in which divine assistance was so common, and in which divine assistance on every suitable occasion would be taken for granted. Those whom they addressed would take this for granted, without any special declaration respecting it.

SIR,

ALIQUIS.

from their inquiries. On the subject of religion they were more particularly alarmed, not only at the time of the foundation of the society, but at a much later period, when under the direction of Newton himself. Even Bishop Sprat, their first historian, ob served, that they have freely admitted men of different religions, countries and professions of life; not to lay the foundation of an English, Scotch, Irish, Popish or Protestant philosophy, but a philosophy of mankind. A curious protest, of the most illustrious of philosophers, may be found: when the Society for pro

the majority probably wished to possess the Exposition itself; some few I know, who already had the original work, subscribed for the sake of the notes. Every subscriber will consider himself as perfectly at liberty to withdraw his name if he pleases: it will not however, be necessary for him to send me any intimation on this subject. When the new edition appears, those who wish for it will be able to obtain it, in the regular way, through the medium of their respective booksellers. JOHN KENRICK.

sirous of holding their meetings at the house of the Royal Society, Newton drew up a number of arguments against their admission. One of them is, that It is a fundamental rule of the Society not to meddle with religion; and the reason is, that we may give no occasion to religious bodies to meddle with us.' Newton would not even comply with their wishes, lest by this compliance the Royal Society might dissatisfy those of other religions.' The wisdom of the protest by Newton is as admirable as it is remarkable,-to preserve the Royal Society from the passions of the age."

SIR,

S inquiries are occasionally made

tion of the late Rev. T. Kenrick's Exposition of the Historical Writings of the New Testament, I have to request your insertion of the following statement. More than two years have now elapsed since the proposals for a new edition with additional notes were first circulated, and the number of names received has been so small that the plan has been renounced as far as concerns the publication of additional notes. It is still, however, the wish of the author's family that the original work should be reprinted. This will be done as speedily as possible, and I hope that the new edition will be ready for delivery in the spring. The price will be considerably less than that of the first edition.

Of those who kindly gave me their names as subscribers to the enlarged edition which I once contemplated,

REFLECTIONS MADE IN A COURSE OF GENERAL READING.

No. CCCCVIII.

Napoleon's Estimate of Value of Time.

All men that have done great things have made much of time. The late Emperor Napoleon was celebrated for punctuality and celerity of movement, and his faithful friend the Count de las Cases has preserved some anecdotes illustrative of his rules of conduct in this particular.

"After having given any one an important mission, or traced out the plan of any great enterprise, the Emperor used frequently to say, Come, Sir, be speedy, use despatch, and do created

in six days.'

“On an occasion of this kind, he concluded by observing to the individual whom he was addressing, ́Ask me for whatever you please, except time; that's the only thing that is beyond my power.'

"On another occasion, Napoleon commissioned a person to execute some important business, which he expected would be finished in the course of the same day. It was not, however, completed until late on the following day. At this the Emperor manifested some degree of dissatisfaction; and the individual, in the hope of excusing himself, said that he had worked all day. But had you not the night also?' replied Napoleon."

Mémorial de Sainte Hélène, Vol. IV. Pt. 7, p. 242.

"T

O believe the Christian religion," says Dr. Hartley,* "is to believe that Moses and the prophets, Christ and his apostles, were endued with divine authority, that they had a commission from God to act and teach as they did, and that he will verify their declarations concerning future things, and especially those concerning a future life, by the event; or, in other words, it is to receive the Scriptures as our rule of life, and the foundation of all our hopes and fears." Cordially assenting to the justness and importance of these remarks, we are happy that the subject of the Seventh Part of Bishop Marsh's Course of Lectures is "the Authority of the Old Testament:" nor could we have objected to its having been made the topic of a foregoing set.

The Professor's thirty-first lecture, begins with a statement of his reasons for treating previously of the authenticity and credibility of the Christian Scriptures:

"When we undertake to establish the authority of different records, the question, which of them shall be first submitted to examination, may depend on circumstances unconnected with priority of composition: and that arrangement must always be preferred, which enables us to conduct our proofs in the most satisfactory manner.”—P. 1.

Now to this statement we cannot subscribe without reserve and expla nation. "That arrangement" may be "the most satisfactory," or, in other words, extremely commodious, to the instructor, which is far from being so to the reader or the hearer. For ourselves, and on such a theme, we shall always prefer the order which best accords with the nature of the question, which is the fairest, the most, ingenuous and legitimate, and which shall be least exposed to objections from the impugners of Revelation.

But, says the Margaret Professor, and he says justly, "the records which contain the Mosaic and Christian religions, must not be confounded with the religions themselves." He further reminds us, that "the authority of the record which conveys the Christian covenant, may be examined without reference to the record which conveyed the former covenant:" and thenticity and credibility of the New. hence he would infer, that as the auTestament were established by arguments which are wholly independent of the Old Testament, so we may legitimately reason from the authority of the records of the Christian, to the authority of the records of the Jewish dispensation. (2, 3.)

of the two grand divisions of the We admit the mutual independence Scriptures: yet in the practical application of the principle we differ

from this writer. The Professor's

observations prove no more than that we may treat of the evidences of the authority of the Old and of the evidences of the authority of the New

Testament in an inverted order: but he does not shew that this arrangement ought to be adopted. Since the Jewish revelation was of far earlier date than the gospel, its pretensions seem to demand a prior examination : the rather, as the evidence is, for the most part, historical, and as the aid of chronology must be extremely desirable, if not, indeed, absolutely requisite. When a very young pupil is

languages, or with science, there may

VOL. XVIII.

4 G

be no impropriety, but even an advantage, in pursuing a series of instructions perfectly unconnected with the descent of those languages, or with the periods of the several discoveries and inventions of science. Yet in a course of lectures, delivered to an academical audience, and laying claim to the praise of "systematical arrangement," we might well expect the strictest regard to the order of the Divine dispensations. Here, if any where, we might suppose, that the "stream which maketh glad the city of our God," would be regularly traced from its fountain head. We can least of all overlook inattention to this kind of method, when numbers of young men are listening to a Professor of Divinity, with the express view of qualifying themselves to instruct others. Bishop Marsh can appeal, no doubt, to the example of eminent men, who have preceded him, as lecturers and writers on the evidences of Judaism and of Christianity: we, too, should make a counter appeal, did we place the issue of the question on authority, rather than on principle.

Another reason for his " beginning with the New Testament (3), is, that the proofs of authenticity and credibility, in reference to individual books, may be conducted more easily and more intelligibly, than the similar proofs in regard to the Old Testament." In somewhat different language, writings of high antiquity, are involved in greater darkness, with respect to the composers and occasions of them, than writings of a later date. This may readily be allowed: but the fact will not justify the deviation upon which we have animadverted. Let the books of the Old Testament be examined on their own ground; and we feel not the slightest apprehensions for the result of the investigation: let them be considered in the order in which they claim to have been written; and we entertain not a doubt of their authority being established. Had that order been adopt

*This is admirably done in Dr. John Taylor's Scheme of Scripture Divinity, &c., which a late Regius Professor (Bp. Watson) inserted as the first article in his Collection of Theological Tracts.

+ See in Mon. Repos. XI. 406, 407,

ed by the Bishop of Peterborough, his difficulty in respect of a definition, would not have been greater than it is at present. It would still have been incumbent on him to state the meaning in which he uses certain terms, and to have employed no other words than what agree with the character and circumstances of the records on which he lectures.

We cordially wish that he had judged it consistent with his undertaking to give, in this part of his course, a repetition, or, at least, an ample summary, of those arguments for the authenticity of the Pentateuch, which he delivered, from the pulpit of Great St. Mary's Church, more than thirty years ago, and the pamphlet containing which has deservedly reached a third edition. In the same compass, scarcely any topic has been better discussed.-But we must follow in the path which the Professor himself selects.

To the greater part of the historical books of the Old Testament the term "authenticity" is inapplicable. We cannot say, that a book is authentic, or written by the author to whom it is ascribed, when the writer of that book is unknown. Now by whom the several books of Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles were composed, we, unquestionably, are ignorant. Nevertheless, the term "credibility" is applicable to them all. Even where we cannot argue from the known situation and character of the writer, we may have reason to believe, that the anonymous author wrote under circumstances which enabled him to acquire a perfect knowledge of the facts recorded. There is nothing which more displays the accuracy of an historian, or excites greater confidence in the truth of his narrative, than references to books of authority, as vouchers for his own history. And it is worthy of notice, that such references occur chiefly, though not solely, in the books of the Kings and of the Chronicles, where we are most at a loss to discover the authors.

The fidelity of the sacred historians

some account of a Course of Theological Instruction, in which this order is observed.

of the Jews, is attested by the consideration, that they could have had no motive to write, as they did, if their narratives were false: they have not flattered the vanity of their countrymen, and as their contemporaries must have known the character of the ancient records to which those historians appealed, so their descendants would not have received their productions, without a rational conviction of their being credible.

To all the prophetic books the term authenticity is applicable without exception for each of these books is ascribed, and, we have reason to be lieve, justly, to a particular author. In estimating the credibility of the prophetic writings, we should remember, that as a history may be true, though the author is unknown, so a prophecy may be true, even though it proceeded not from the author to whom it is commonly ascribed. Two questions must here be asked the former, Do the words of the alleged prophecy, according to their plain and literal meaning, relate to that distant event, to which they have been subsequently applied? The se cond, Was that prophecy delivered so long before the event predicted, as to place it beyond the reach of human foresight (4-14.)

With the Margaret Professor we think that a prophecy may be literal and divine, whether it be an authentic part of the book which contains it, or not. There is an obvious impor tance, however, in ascertaining, if we can, the name and history of the writer; for the purpose of better determining on the age and character of the alleged prediction.

Bishop Marsh concludes his thirtyfirst lecture with some very general remarks on the antiquity and nature of the remaining books of the Old Testament; on Job, the Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Solomon's Song.

In the thirty-second lecture he takes a different view of all the Jewish Scriptures, and considers them not individually, but collectively. To the whole of them he applies the term "authority," which, he observes, "may include both authenticity and credibility, where both terms are applicable, and denote credibility or truth, where the other term cannot

be applied." This authority he finds in the testimony of our Saviour, which has been borne, in various ways, to the books of the Old Testament. By Jesus Christ the Pentateuch was quoted repeatedly, as the work of Moses. Next to the writings of that distinguished Lawgiver, he made the greatest use of the book of Psalms, one of which (the 110th) he expressly ascribed to David. The fact is the same as to the books of Isaiah and of Daniel: these he specifically attested. But the greater part of his quotations from the Old Testament were made without reference to the particular book, from which the passages were taken. This mode of quotation was agreeable to the practice of the Jews. Whenever he appealed to the Scrip tures, that is, to the Scriptures of the Old Testament, he appealed to the Hebrew Scriptures without distinction: all of them, as they existed in his time, received the sanction of his authority. They were then, as they are at present, divided, by the Jews, into three classes: and this threefold arrangement of them our Lord observed; his appeal to them corresponding with the appeals of Philo and Josephus. Should it be objected, that, according to the Jewish reckoning, the three classes contained twenty-two books, whereas the canonical books of the Hebrews, as arranged in our Bibles, amount to thirty-nine, a slight attention to the manner of computation will convince us that the dissonance is only apparent and not real. A difficulty so removed, is converted into a proof. (17-31.)

Throughout this lecture the Margaret Professor reasons with intelligence and strength. His argument will be satisfactory to those persons who, like ourselves, are already persuaded of the truth of Christianity. Nevertheless, for the sake of others, we should have preferred his treating of the two Revelations in the order of their dates.

The object of Bishop Marsh's thirty-third lecture, is to prove, that the Hebrew Scriptures which received the sanction of our Saviour, contained the same books which are now contained in our Hebrew Bibles. Of this identity, however, direct historical evidence cannot, at present, be obtained. Ac