Some writers speak with great confidence of a future restoration of the Jews to their native land. But this, we apprehend, is an abfurd notion, originally maintained by the Jews, who ftill expect a temporal Meffiah; and fupported by Chriftian writers, on the mifapplication of prophecies, which describe the return of the Jews from the Babylonian captivity in the bold and figurative language of eaftern eloquence.

For thefe, and other reafons which might be affigned, we cannot help thinking that many prophecies are ufually applied very improperly to Chriflianity, and the church in future times, which ought not to be extended beyond the limits and duration of the Jewish fiate. At the fame time we allow the general principle for which this learned writer contends, in his fecond difcourfe, that the doctrine of a future and more excellent difpenfation is not only contained in pofitive and exprefs predictions, but alfo neceffarily implied in the very frame of the Jewish

œconomy.

The gofpel difpenfation, according to the comparison of our Saviour, was like a grain of mustard-feed, arifing from a small beginning, and spreading itself by degrees to an amazing extent. Our author, therefore, in his third discourse, endeavours to fhew, that this is perfectly agreeable to all the reprefentations and views which the prophets have given us of the kingdom of the Mefliah.

In his fourth fermon, he confiders the diftinguishing marks and characteristics of the Meffiah. Under this head he tells us, in a high ftrain of Athanafianism, that

The perfon defcribed by the prophets, as to be born a man upon earth, of the family of David, was not to begin his existence at that future period, when he should become man ; but did then actually exift when the prophets fpoke, and had existed from everlasting, the proper Son of God, therefore himself God; eternal, therefore God; the authorized object of divine worfhip, therefore God; the Creator of the world, therefore God; Jehovah, therefore the one true God, the God of Ifrael, whofe name alone is Jehovah, the Moft High over all the earth.'

In the fifth difcourfe he fhews, that the Meffiah's kingdom was not to be of this world, but fomething of a more pure, more fpiritual, and more extended nature than mere earthly principles could either give rife to, or admit of; that the mercies of his reign were not to be confined to one nation; and that the deliverance which can answer the predictions of the prophets, must be a general deliverance, applicable to all mankind.

This leads him to confider the death of Chrift as an expiatory facrifice, as a fatisfaction made to the divine nature,

as

as a ransom paid to God to free us from the bondage we were under to fin and fatan,' &c.

The following reflection is worthy of notice:

A difpenfation of fo extenfive, complicate, and spiritual a nature, requiring too the fufferings and death of its founder, must be but an unpromifing undertaking for an impoftor to engage in. And accordingly, they who have fet up in this way have formed themselves entirely on the narrow carnal prejudices and mifconceptions of the Jews, and not after that model which was held forth by the prophets.'

The fubject of the fixth difcourfe is the time of the Meffiah's coming. Here the author proves, that, according to the defcription of the prophets, it was to have its beginning before the Jewish policy was at an end; that Chrift fhould diftinguish the fecond temple by his perfonal appearance, &c.

Speaking of John the Baptift, preceding the appearance of the Meffiah, he has this pertinent remark:

This circumftance muft operate as a bar to the pretenfions of impoftors. A double fcheme was neceffary to be concerted; the one prior and fubfervient to the other; and to be carried on by different perfons, the ambition or private views of only one of which could be ferved by it. But as interefted and selfish views, of one kind or other, are the only inducements that can lead men to cheat and impofe, fuch a combination as this could not be undertaken with any prospect of fuccefs.'

And in the conclufion of this difcourfe, he remarks,

That all the periods affigned by the Jews for the coming of the Meffiah have now been past above two hundred years.'

Several of thefe, as fixed by Abarbanel and others, may be seen in the treatise De Adventu Meffiæ. Bartoloc. Bib. Rabbin.

tom. v.

The feventh difcourfe is calculated to fhew, that Jefus and his apoftles did establish a system of religion in the world at the time contended for; and that what is now called Christianity, the laws and doctrines of which are contained in the New Teftament, is fubftantially that very fyftem which was then. established, at the period limited by the prophets for the commencement of the Meffiah's kingdom.

After mentioning fome pagan authorities on this head, he thus endeavours to vindicate the teftimony of Jofephus :

His hiftory reprefents the ftate, character, and circumstances of the Jews, at the time we are speaking of, in a manner exactly conformable to what we find in the apoftolic writings; and fo far confirms their veracity. More than once he mentions Jefus as having lived a fhort time before. His teftimony in one place

gives fuch fall fupport to the whole gofpel hiftory, that it feems for that reafon only to have fallen into fufpicion; though, in other refpects, it has as good a claim to authenticity as any paffage whatever in all his writings. It is directly referred to by many old writers of unquestionable credit; and the bare omiffion of it in others, whofe fubjects might be fuppofed to have led them to notice it, is a negative argument (though much insisted on) that can prove little, as long as there is pofitive evidence on the other fide. But arguments are urged from the paffage itself, It is pretended, that more is admitted into it than Jofephus, as a Jew, could admit. What Jofephus might or might not admit, is hard for us to determine at this time. The different copies afford fome flight varieties in the reading, which help, however, to remove the fuppofed difficulties. That he had not the fame averfion to Chriftians and their doctrines that fome of his countrymen had, may be fairly inferred from his faying nothing against them in any part of his works. His book of Antiquities, in which this memorable paffage ftands, is addreffed in terms of honour and respect to Epaphroditus, who was himself most probably a Chriftian. It might well be on his account that the hiftorian fhould add thefe words (είγε άνδρα αυλον λέγειν χρη) as if he had faid, If I may be allowed to call him a man, whom I know you worship as God;"-the other words reprefented as including an infuperable difficulty, ὗτος ὁ Χρισος ἦν, if that be the exact reading, need imply no more, than that the Jefus, whom he is fpeaking of, was that very perfon whom Epaphroditus and his fellow Chriftians called & Xeiros; not that Jofephus acknowleged his pretenfions in their full extent. It is remarkable, that Jerom renders the words "Et credebatur effe Chriftus-And he was believed to be the Chrift."

66

The fubject which the hiftorian is upon neceffarily led him to fay fomething of Jefus and his followers. He is profeffedly treating of feveral attempts at innovation in the Jewish state, that had been made about that time. What he appears to have faid, is no other, on a reasonable interpretation, than what such a Jew as Jofephus might well fay when he was writing to a Chriftian friend and it is faid in a turn of phrafe and expreffion peculiarly his own. For these reasons I am convinced, that this teftimony is authentic with refpect to the fact of the miniftry and death of Jefus, and the continuance of certain perfons profeffing to be his difciples after his death, which is the only purpofe to which I mean here to apply it.'

:

In the eighth difcourfe the author confiders what the pretenfions of Chriftianity are, and how far they correspond with thofe more general characters, which the prophets reprefent as effential to the new difpenfation. Under this head he fhews, that Christ was of the house of David; that he was the Son of God in a proper and diftinguished fenfe; that he paffed his life upon earth in a humble, despised, afflicted state; that he performed

many miraculous works; but that he underwent a painful and ignominious death; and raised himself from the dead, in exact agreement with what the prophets had foretold of the Meffiah.

In proving that Jefus Chrift was of the family of David, the author appeals to the following anecdote:

In the times both of Domitian and Trajan, the kinfmen of our Lord were judicially arraigned, as being of the Davidical family, then deemed a dangerous offence. For this we have the teftimony of Hegefippus, a living witnefs of the fact.'

The supposed kinfmen of our Lord here mentioned, were grandfons of St. Jude. Scaliger treats this as an improbable ftory. The learned reader may fee his reafons for exploding it, in his Notes on the Chronicle of Eufebius, p. 187. edit. 1606. What our author fays of Hegefippus being a living witness of the fact, is alfo incredible. Domitian was affaffinated in the year 96; Trajan died in 117; but Hegefippus did not go to Rome till about the year 170, and was alive in the first year of Commodus, A. D. 181. It is therefore utterly improbable that he should have been present at the examination of the fuppofed kinfmen of our Lord, in the reign of Domitian. Our author adds: The Babylonish Talmud too admits, with respect to Jefus himself, that he was related to the kingdom.' This teftimony is as infignificant as the former. The Babylonian Talmud was not compiled till about 500, or, as F. Morinus thinks, not finished till 700 years after Chrift; and the conceffion of an unknown writer is of no weight. Chriftianity wants no fuch teftimonies; it is hardly worth producing, especially in that vague and unfatisfactory manner in which it is exhibited by our author, who feems not to have confulted the Talmud, but to have taken his argument at fecond-hand; for he does not condefcend to inform us in which of the twelve folio volumes it is to be found.

The ninth difcourfe contains an account of the nature of the Meffiah's kingdom. The tenth is a representation of the progrefs and fates of the new difpenfation, from fome paffages in the Apocalypfe. The eleventh is a continuation of the fame fubject. The twelfth confifts of obfervations on the use and intent of prophecy, and the inferences deducible from the foregoing arguments.

In the course of these discourses, the learned author has not only endeavoured to demonstrate the truth of Christianity from the prophecies of the Old and New Teftament, but has moreover attempted to fhew, that many of thofe theological doctrines, which are maintained in our creeds and articles, those very doctrines which have been held forth by the prophets

are

fince

fince the world began, as the effential doctrines of that faith, by which all men fhould be faved.'-This part of his performance is a work of fupererogation; but it will, no doubt, be accepte able to the orthodox divine.

Sermons on feveral Occafions, preached before, the University of Cambridge; to which is prefixed, a Differtation on that Species of Compofition. By J. Mainwaring. B. D. 8vo. 6s. Cadell.

To O thefe Difcourfes the learned author has prefixed a differtation on the composition of fermons. In the first part of this tract, he endeavours to vindicate the ufe of fuch argumentative discourses, as are written more particularly with a view to readers of an improved taste, and a cultivated understanding. He then confiders the proper ftyle of fermons, with respect to perfpicuity, purity or correctnefs, elegance, pathos, piety, and eloquence.

In treating of correctnefs, he very juftly complains of the inaccuracy of fome writers, and the affectation of others.

The generality of thofe, who have attained any great proficiency in the art of thinking, feldom condescend to take much pains in learning to exprefs their thoughts; and the greater part of thofe, who have been long converfant in the learned languages, are alfo very fubject to neglect their own. The confequences of this will be noticed in confidering out concluding article. In the mean time, one cannot but lament the hard fate of our admirable language, which, though it has a little of the German roughness, correfponding with that martial fpirit fo peculiar to both regions, to our climate, as well as to theirs; is far from being deficient in regard to delicacy; and in point of ftrength and fublimity, is fuperior to the Roman language, when carried to its utmost perfection. Yet while the other great nations of Europe have long been ufing every poffible endeavour Io cultivate theirs, the ftudy of English has been left to itself; or confined to mere children, and their low, illiterate, female teachers. It fhould feem indeed as if learning had entered into a league with ignorance to complete the ruin of our ill-fated language. Confider the practice of the ableft scholars. Do they not affume a privilege of altering it, as oft as they please, under pretence of improving it, by the introduction not only of new, or antiquated terms, but of foreign idioms, and forms of conftruction? And has not every writer of eminence, whether in the polite, or the learned world, prided himself in adding fomething to this increafing fund? If the practice fhould proceed much farther, in another century our pureft writers muft be unintelligible; for we fhall have little or nothing of the genuine Englith remaining in our tongue.'

The