to mine: it would be both my duty and my wifdom, to entreat, that the fceptre might still remain with himfelf, and that I might have nothing to do in the direction of a fingle incident, or of fo much as a fingle circumstance.

"Mr. Wefley laments, that Neceffity is The fcheme, which is now adopted by not a few of the most fenfible men in the nation.*. I agree with him, as to the fact. But I cannot deplore it as a calamity. The progrefs, which that doctrine has, of late years, made, and is ftill making, in this kingdom; I confider as a most happy and promising fymptom, that the divine goodness has yet abundant mercys in referve, for a church, the majority of whofe reputed members have long apoftatized from her effential principles; and for at country, whole morals have degenerated, in proportion to the corruptions of its faith.

"May the fet time be nigh at hand, for our national recovery to the gospel and to virtue! then fhall God, even our own God, give us his bleffing.

In our author's differtation on the fenfible qualities of matter, he fhews himself to be as orthodox a philofopher as he is a divine, feeming to be as found a Newtonian as he is a Calvinist; bat as he chiefly contents himself with adducing and applying the arguments of former writers, we must here clofe the article,

ART. X. Fourteen Difcourfes, critical, explanatory, and prac tical, on difficult Texts: with an Appendix to the three first Difcourfes. By Bartholomew Keeling, M. A. Rector of Tiffield and Bradden, in Northamptonshire, and Chaplain to the Right Hon. Earl Temple. 8vo. 6s. Fletcher, Oxford. Walter, London. These interesting difcourfes appear to have been printed at different times, and to be now collected for the first time into the

Take a fpecimen of the vitiated state, to which the free-will gangrene has reduced the moral tafte of this Christian and reformed country; in the following admired lines, which are part of a very applauded entertainment, lately introduceă n the English ttage:

With fport. love, and wine, fickle fortune defy;

• Dull wisdom all kappiness fours.

Since life is no more than a pallage, at beft;

Let us ftrew the way over with flow'rs.'

Was a religious and fenfible foreigner, whether Proteftant, or Popith: Jew, Mahometan, or Heathen; to be informed, that fuch equally deteftable and despicable fentiments, as thofe, are heard with rapture at the British theatres, and chorus'd with delight in numberlefs private companys, in every part of the kingdom: would be not be inclined to fet us down, in general, for a nation of Epicurean Atheists, t only to wallow in the Circaan fly; quite loft to all religion, philofophy, virtue, and decency; and no otherwife entitled to the name of Man, than by perpendicula,ity of thape connected with the art of speaking?

If prone in thought, our ftature is our fhame;

• And man ihould bluth, his forehead fronts the skies." Plaka cii. 13.

E 4

prefent

prefent volume. The three first relate to St. Paul's remarkable with to be accurfed from Chrift for the fake of his brethren; (Romans ix. 3.) which Mr. Keeling elucidates and vindicates from mifconftructions. The three next refpect Mofes's petition to be blotted out of the book of God (Exodus xxxii. 31, 32, 33.) which he explains, and in like manner vindicates from mifconftruction; expatiating pretty largely on the excellence of Mofes's character. The four fucceeding ferve to difplay the harmony of the three first Evangelifts, in their accounts of the behaviour of the crucified malefactors.-The four laft tend to expofe the alliance of herefy with deifin, and of deifm and apoftacy with the blafphemy that is not to be forgiven. These are preached from Romans iii. 18. "Let no man deceive himself: If any man « among you feemeth to be wife in this world, let him become a

fool, that he may be wife." In the course of these fermons, the pious preacher makes a comparison between the antient and modern oppofers of the chriftian church; entering into an enquiry into the fenfe and meaning of the pretended right to private judgment in religion. In thefe difcourfes, as indeed throughout the whole collection, the zeal and orthodoxy of the preacher appears in a striking light, though difplayed in a ftile of moderation and decorum; which, becoming the subject, we should fincerely recommend to the reverend Author of the book reviewed in the last article.

Under thofe herefjes, which, in the preacher's opinion, grow into the horrid fin of apoftacy, he reckons the disbelief of those fundamental doctrines of Chriftianity, the Trinity, the Incarnation of our Saviour, and the Grace of the Holy Spirit. On this head, he obferves, that

"The arguments of hereticks for liberty and free enquiry, like the pretences made by deifts of a regard for the interefts of the gospel, are a mere cloak for a defign of modelling the revelation of Jesus Christ according to their own fancies; and both the doctrines and arguments infifted upon by each, when driven up to their true principles and unmasked, and alfo the pernicious effects of fuch doctrines and arguments upon men of weak and unftable minds, do warrant us to pronounce the abettors of them to be falfe prophets who come in fheep's cloathing, whilft inwardly they are ravening wolves. It makes but little difference, except the mere faving appearances to men of fuperficial thought, whether the facred records of our religion are immediately traduced, or whether the principles by which they are diftinguifhed, are disparaged through the fides of the church and the ftewards of the myfteries of God who teach the wholesome words of our Lord Jefus Chrift, and the doctrine which is according to godlinefs. Every precedure which tends to difcredit those doctrines which are the pillars of our most holy religion, and to introduce fcepticifm and uncertainty in thefe momentous points, however conducted and cloaked over with the plea of free enquiry or pretences

of

of an enlarged benevolence, is the fuggeftion of that carnal miud which is enmity against God and our Lord Jefus Chrift; and proceedeth from him who was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him.' And all thefe arts must be refolved into Modera hans, (if I may apply again the acute and lively delineation of our apoftle) a crafty treacherous cefign to beguile unstable minds, and to lay open the fences of the vineyard, that all they that go by may pluck off the grapes; i. e. deftroy the pure and genuine principles of religion, and the right worfhip of the deity which are found in the church."

We agree with the preacher, that it makes but little difference, except for the faving appearances, whether the foundation of the chriftian church be infidiously undermined, or its walls infolently mounted by ftorm: as we are affured nothing fhall prevail against it, it can be in fact in no danger from either. With regard to the affailants, we conceive the attempt also may differ in degree of criminality; at least a fuppofed infidious miner may not always be a malicious enemy. Zeal, indeed, cries out, "He that is not for us is against us;" but while we think confiftently, and admit of the operation of free grace, and the fpiritual inability of the carnal mind to work out its own falvation, furely we must make fome difference between the modeft and diffident fceptic and the impudent, and arrogant apoftate. Surely there is fome difference between mere disbelief and downright denial. Doubt is neither negative nor pofitive, it neither affirms nor denies; Scepticism, therefore, must be at least so far lefs criminal than Dogmatism, as the affirming a falfehood is more criminal than the fimply doubting of a truth. We are difpofed to be of the preacher's mind in refpect to the pretended chrif tians, to whom he evidently alludes; but till they are more openly convicted of the finifter defigns imputed to them, we think chriftian charity should induce us to leave their condemnation to the great fearcher of all hearts; who beft knows to judge them. Herefy," fays the preacher, "if it be understood of merely "disbelieving, the article of the godhead of Jefus Chrift, it, " even in this point, virtually amounts to, and implies the denying "the chriftian religion; as difowning the authority on which it "refts; as, on the contrary, the confeffion of this principle of his "divinity implies an acknowḥdgement of his whole doctrine." We admit of this, and yet cannot help thinking, that in fo important an accufation, the proof thould be pofitive and explicit; and that men fhould not be condemned by implication, for denying what they only want God's grace to believe. The fceptic is an object of pity, the apoftate may merit punishment We are perfectly of the preacher's opinion, with refpect to the truth of the fundamental principles of chriftianity, and the incompetence of buman reafon to judge of divine wisdom; but, as men and pro

teftants, we must contend fo far for the right of exercising priwate judgment, in matters of religion, as that men may be permitted to doubt till they are influenced by grace to believe. To inculcate the contrary doctrine, and fulminate anathemas against the poor in spirit and those of little faith, may tend to form puritans and hypocrites, but will never increase the number of real converts or true chriftians.

ART. XI. Critica Sacra examined, or an Attempt to fhew that a new Method may be found to reconcile the feemingly glaring Va riations in parallel Places of Scripture; and that confequently fuch Variations are no Proofs of Corruption, or Miftakes of Tranfcribers. By Raphael Baruh. 8vo. 5s. Hay.

The prevailing taste of the learned of the prefent age, fays Mr. Baruh, feems to be that ef fcripture criticism.

"This tafte, though indeed a laudable one, has led them, ftep after step, to perfuade themselves of their being numberlefs corruptions in the Hebrew text; till, at laft, it has made them affume the character of rectifiers, and correctors of thofe pretended corrup tions, occafioned, as they imagined, by the inaccuracy and mistakes of transcribers. Many and very judicious plans have been propofed by thefe learned men, to find out thofe corruptions; and many ingenious methods have been devifed towards restoring the true reading to its primitive ftate. I do not pretend, in the following fheets, to enter into the great question, whether or not the Hebrew text has reached our hands in its primitive purity? I am fenfible that the generality of men of letters are ftrongly of opinion that it has not; nay, it is almoft univerfally held, that many corruptions have been introduced by the negligence and careleffnefs of Jewish transcribers."

Thus Mr. Baruh: but he need not have been fo tender on this fubject. That the Jews corrupted their fcriptures, either wilfully or accidentally, is an old accufation, fucceffively fupported by Morinus, Capellus, Voflius, Simon, Pezron, Le Clerc, and afterwards by Whifton; who were anfwered by Buxtorf and other German Divines, but particularly by Carpzovius, in his piece entitled, A Defence of the Hebrew Bible, in answer to the charge of corruption brought against it by Mr. Whiston, in his Effay towards reftoring the true Text of the Old Teftament. Carpzovius, in particular, obferves, that Whifton ploughed with Morinus's heifer; an expreflion we may adopt with refpect to Dr. Kennicot, who has ploughed with Mr. Whifton's heifer, as the Author of the Critica Sacra has done with that of Dr. Kennicot.

It is indeed fomewhat furprizing, that the Differtations and Critica Sacra fhould venture to make their appearance, after Carpzovius's mafterly answer to Whiston, as if no fuch objections had already been made, and no anfwer given to them. However,

as trifling objections against the truth have often produced important answers in favour of it, fo thefe repetitions of old grie vances may hence be more effectually redreffed, efpecially as at length they have excited the Jews themfelves to engage in the caufe, who may be fuppofed to understand their own language, fynonimes and phrafeology better than any other people. Of this the author, of the tract before us, hath given more than one example.

The author of the Critica Sacra had recommended, as the means to discover and correct many errours in the Hebrew text, the comparing together the feveral correfpondent paffages of fcripture; noting their difference; and thence adopting thofe particular readings which beft agree with the tenour of the context and the rules of grammar. Our author would improve on this method, which neceffarily infers the corruption of the facred text, by other means that, ferve to prove the most respectable criticks have been too precipitate in pronouncing fome of the paffages in queftion abfolutely corrupted; or that will ferve at leaft to make them a little more cautious in their propofed corrections.

In the present tract our critick confines himself, however, to thofe collations which relate to the book of Chronicles, as pointed out by the author of the Critica Sacra. This book is thought by fame to be the moft corrupted, as well as the latest written book, in the Qld Teftament: it is yet held in esteem, because it frequently fettles the true reading of the other books, more ancient and important,

"Whoever, fays our critick, was the author of the book of Chro nicles, whether Ezra or any other, he certainly was an inspired and learned man; and it will be readily granted, that he wrote it at or pear the time that the facred books were collected, and their canon eftablished. One of the many reasons that might have induced him to write this book was, to throw light on those passages which he purposely copied out of others, and, by altering, or adding fome phrafes, meant only to explain fuch dark paffages, or to refolve a difficulty which ftared in the face of the reader, in thofe very ancient accounts, as they stood recorded *. The author of the Chronicles evidently meant to record fome facts, or things left out in former accounts, and likewife to fupply fome deficiency, or to introduce a different account of fome circumstance in hiftory, as he found it registered in fome other authentick record, not quite agreeing with that recorded in thofe ancient books: for indeed it must be confeffed, that before the Babylonian captivity they were very much neglected by the Jews; and the hardships and calamities, to which they were expofed during that period, were very unfavourable to the preferva, tion of the purity of ancient writings. He chofe rather this method

To the fame purpose is given a Lint, by the learned Dr. Bayly, in the Appenz dix to his Hebrew Glammar

of