which children may become our patterns, will easily suggest themselves, and ought to have been attentively weighed by every devout Christian. The object of our author in his selection of his subject is undoubtedly in a great degree to check all presumption, all unprofitable and mischievous curiosity; but he is not less anxious to urge the necessity of " diligently. pursuing such knowledge as is attainable and profitable." We should be glad to extract some passages, in order to shew his intention in his own admirable language; but we prefer laying before our readers one of the last paragraphs in the volume, which justifies the author in bringing forward this subject among the peculiarities of the Christian religion.

"Let it not be forgotten, that that feature in the Gospel-system of instruction which has been here noticed,... is one of the circumstances peculiar to Christianity-strikingly characteristic of it; and strongly confirming its divine origin, its importance, and its excellence.

"As it is obviously a great advantage to teach not merely by precept, but by example, so that advantage is much enhanced, if the example employed be one which is always at hand; nor could a more suitable pattern, than the one in question, have been presented to the imitation of creatures, standing in such a relation as we do to the Creator; and whose present life is designed as a preparation for a more perfect and exalted state hereafter. Yet the best heathen mo ralists, even those who taught and professed to believe a future state, had not recourse to, or at least did not usually employ, this mode of instruction. They spoke much of the beauty of virtue; of the dignity of human nature; of the heroism of striving to rise above the vulgar mass of mortals: but they did not enough consider that the first step to elevation is Humility; that though the palace of wisdom be indeed a lofty structure, its entrance is low, and it forbids admission without bending; they knew not, or at least taught not, that our nature must be exalted by first understanding and acknowledging the full amount of its weakness and imperfection. 'Jesus called unto him a little child, and set him in the midst;' what other teacher ever did the like? what other teacher indeed ever completely' knew what was in man,' and understood thoroughly how to remedy the defects of his nature, and to fit him for a better state?" P. 274.

It has been our wish to give our readers as full a statement of the contents of those Essays to which we have confined our attention as is consistent with our narrow limits; and we shall be much disappointed if some desire be not thereby excited to peruse the volume itself. They will find in it much to reward the best attention they can bestow upon it. The topics are well selected, and are handled in a manner which shews much serious reflection, elevated piety, and a spirit conformed to

those rules of evangelical lowliness and docility which are here so well inculcated. It is indeed very edifying to mark with what readiness a powerful but well-trained mind submits itself to learn with all humility the truth as it is in Jesus. It has happened to us while engaged in the perusal of the volume before us to hear of a person in extreme ignorance venturing upon one of the most mysterious doctrines of our religion. The contrast was unspeakably striking, when we reflected on the forwardness and presumption of such persons as this poor woman, who was boldly venturing she knew not whither, and then turned to the lowliness and fearfulness expressed by our author, who would scarce touch upon these matters, unless it were to apply them to some useful, practical purpose. Were we to recommend this example in the quarter to which we have alluded, we should be told that "God hath hid these things from the wise and prudent." And so indeed he hath! and the truly wise will learn a lesson of deep humility at the thought of it. But how sad is it, if the same consideration should lead those who are babes in knowledge to cherish an unholy spirit of rash confidence and presumption!

Essays on the Evidences, Doctrines, and Practical Operations of Christianity. By JOSEPH JOHN GURNEY. 8vo. Pp. 566. 10s. 6d. London. Arch. 1825.

WE have already expressed our opinion upon the general character of Mr. Gurney's writings; nor do we find any reason, in the work before us, to lower the estimate then given of his merits as an author. The same seriousness and candour are manifest throughout the present volume, which constituted much of the excellence of his former publications. No inconsiderable degree of research is also apparent, and the results of his enquiries are always developed with care-in some instances with singular felicity of arrangement. In general Mr. Gurney may claim the praise of having compressed much important information into a small compass, without obscurity or misrepresentation; which perhaps is as much as could reasonably be expected in a work of so extensive a nature, every part of which has been fully treated by preceding authors.

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 reference 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 strictness) 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 Prophét. 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 gather ing 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 fol low 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.

"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 Prin ciples 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.

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.

6

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