Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

David Jennings, D. D. In two Volumes. 8vo. 125. Johnfan and Davenport.

MR

R. Furneaux, the Editor of this work, acquaints us in his preface to it, that the learned Author compofed it for the private ufe of those theological pupils, who studied under his direction; and that it is now offered to the public, as deferving the perufal of all, who would obtain an intimate acquaintance with the facred oracles, especially with the Old Teftament; as well as of those whofe profeffion leads them more directly to the ftudy of divinity.- Many paffages of the word of God, we are told, are fkilfully explained and illuftrated by the Author, and many more may be fo, by a judicious application of that knowledge of Jewish antiquities which is comprized in his work.

[ocr errors]

Though the learned Author, continues Mr. Furneaux, chose to execute his defign upon the plan of the three first books of Godwin's Mofes and Aaron, his work nevertheless doth not confift of detached remarks on the text of that writer, but of diftinct and compleat differtations on the fubjects treated of by him, and on fome others which he hath omitted; infomuch that it is not neceffary to have recourfe continually to Godwin, in the perufal of the following volumes; which must have been the reader's difagreeabie tafk, had this work been a collection. of fhort notes and obfervations. In one or two places the editor hath taken the liberty of inferting either from Godwin or from Hottinger's notes upon him, what feemed neceffary to compleat the fubje&t, and render the difcourfe regular and uniform; particularly in the chapter on the gates of Jerufalem, which in the author's MS copy confifted merely of what the reader will here find on the miracle which our Saviour wrought at the pool of Bethfeda; fituated, as fome fuppofe, near the fheep-gate. Nevertheless though it is not requifite frequently to turn to Godwin, in purfuing this work, for a compleat view of the fubject, yet if the correfpondent chapters in the two treatifes are read in conjunction, we fhall fee reafon, on the comparison, to entertain the higher opinion of the industry with which our learned author hath collected his materials, and of the judgment and skill with which he hath discussed the ticular fubject before him.

par

With refpect to the differtation on the Hebrew language, it may be obferved, that the author once thought more highly of the antiquity and authority of the maforetic readings and of the vowel-points, than he did after perufing the ingenious and learned Dr. Kennicott's two differtations, efpecially his ficond, on the Hebrew text; by which the author, as well as the generality of the learned world, was convinced, they deferved not that extravagant and fuperftitious regard, which the

credit of the two Buxtorfs, and of fome other eminent hebraicians in the last age, had procured them from men of letters. Once in particular he expreffed his fentiments on this fubject to the editor, and gave fome general idea of his intended alteration in the differtation on the Jewish language; which it is prefumed, he was prevented from accomplishing by the declining ftate of his health, for fome time before his deceafe. The editor hath endeavoured to fupply this little defect in fome meafure, by inferting a few references to and obfervations from Dr. Kennicott, and by foftening a few expreffions in conformity with the author's lateft fentiments on this head.

Though thefe volumes profeffedly treat of the subjects, which are contained in the three first books of Godwin, yet feveral things are occafionally introduced relative to the fubjects of his three last books; which was one reafon, why the author did not proceed to the particular confideration of them. Another was, that the three firft books comprize all the fubjects which relate to the facred or ecclefiaftical antiquities of the Hebrews, and which are peculiarly requifite to the understanding of the Jewish, and confequently in fome meafure, of the christian scheme of theology.

This piece of Godwin, ftiled Mofes and Aaron, the method of which our author chose to follow, hath been annotated and commented upon by a variety of authors. One of the moft judicious, who have favoured the public with their lucubrations, is Hottinger. There are two fets of annotations in manufcript, one by the learned Witfius, which he read to his ftudents in the univerfity of Leyden; a copy of which was in the hands of Dr. Jennings, who hath been in a few inftances, and but in few, beholden to it. Another annotator, whose performance is yet in manufcript, was the learned Mr. Samuel Jones of Tewksbury. His work, of which there are several copies extant, is written in neat Latin, and contains very valuable remarks, which difcover his great learning and accurate knowledge of his fubject. From this writer the editor hath inferted a note in vol. II. p. 71. and in a few other places. Dr. Jennings never faw Mr. Jones's annotations, though there is a fimilarity in a few of their obfervations, they having both been in poffeffion of a copy of Witfius. But the doctor's own work furpaffes the performances of both these learned writers, as in fome other refpects, fo particularly in compafs and va-riety, and as it contains the opinions and improvements of later authors. And it is hoped it will answer the end for which it was originally compofed, and is now published, the advancement of religion and learning, and the knowledge of thofe oracles of God, which are able to make us wife to falvation.'..

As this work is not defignel for the generality of readers,

the

the above account of it by the learned editor will, we hope, be deemed fufficient.

A Defence of Revelation in general, and the Gospel in particular; in Anfiver to the Objections advanced in a late Book, entitled, The Morality of the New Teftament digefted under various Heads, &c. &c. and fubfcribed, A Rational Chriftian. 8vo. 45. fewed. Sandby.

HE advocates for Chriftianity are often reduced to the dif

Tagreeable neceflity of repeating what has been often faid,

and of combating adverfaries who have nothing to recommend them to public notice, unless it be their scepticism and infidelity, which, by their forwardnefs to fhew them upon every occafion, one fhould imagine they looked upon as honourable titles. By calling in queftion the truth of commonly received opinions, which certainly may be done with a very moderate fhare of abilities, they flatter themselves, no doubt, that they are diftinguished from the common herd of mortals, and that they have obtained a noble fuperiority over vulgar prejudices. A fpirit of inquiry, and a generous concern for the caufe of truth, to which they make loud pretenfions, are, we readily acknowledge, noble principles; but they would do well to confider, that licentious buffoonry, frivolous cavils, illiberal banter, intemperate fcurrility, chicane, fophiftry, railing at prieftcraft, &c. &c. will never juftify these pretenfions, or prove their title to the honourable diftinctions they affume. In order to render their oppofition to Chriftianity reafonable, or in any degree honourable to them, they muft purfue a very different method from what they have hitherto purfued. They must produce new objections, or fhew that the answers which have been made to old ones are infufficient. No impartial perfon, who is acquainted with the fubject, can or will deny, that answers have been given to every thing they have hitherto urged against the evidences of Chriftianity: most of these answers have never been confuted, nor fo much as an attempt made to confute them. If deifts, therefore, would approve themselves impartial enquirers after truth, they must confute the defences of Chriftianity. While they decline this, and go on in the manner they now do, they have no title to the favourable regards of the public, nor can they be looked upon, by the confiderate of any party, as acting a fair and honeft part.

We are far from defiring to fee them laid under any restraint; on the contrary, we fincerely wish to fee them invited, encouraged, and challenged to produce all their objections, and to try their utmost firength in the way of free and fair debate. If Christianity is of divine original, it will gain by an impartial examination; if it is an impofture, the fooner we are rid of it,

the better.

Some

Some of the advocates for Christianity, we are ready to allow, have treated the deifts in a very illiberal manner, and have written, as if they thought the caufe of God could not be defended without the fpirit of the devil; thefe we willingly give up to all the contempt they deferve. They are the more inex-. cufeable, as the religion they profefs recommends and inculcates, in the ftrongest terms, a conduct directly oppofite, and a temper and difpofition of mind very different from, that which appears in their writings. As for us, we always wish to fee Christianity defended with that dignity which the excellence of its nature requires, and with that candour and charity which are the very life and fpirit of its laws; we wish to fee it attacked with no other weapons but thofe of argument and fober reafoning, because other weapons must bring difgrace and contempt on those who use them.

Thefe reflections naturally occurred to us upon looking into the book, entitled, The Morality of the New Teftament digefted, &c. and we hope our Readers will neither think them improper nor mifplaced. The ingenious author of the Defence now before us addreffes himself to the reader in the following terms:

Many are the difcouragements, fays he, with which the refutation of objections against revealed religion is unavoidably attended. Both the fubject, and the arguments, have in general been fo often confidered, that very few will be difpofed to read, what it may be neceffary to write; and of those few, fcarce any will be thoroughly pleafed, and the majority perhaps often difgufted. If concifenefs is ftudied, the writer may feem, on points of fuch concern, not to have faid enough; if he is. diffufe on fubjects fo well known, he will appear to have said too much. Should he not answer the objections before him in an ample manner, it will be thought he had better not have attempted to anfwer them at all; and fhould he place their weaknefs in the strongest point of view, they may then be found in fact fo utterly infignificant, as to be deemed unworthy of refu-. tation. If the particulars conce:ned have not been made fubjes of difpute among believers themfelves, many will think it unneceflary to confider them, on that account alone; and fhould they have been controverted points, the writer muft unavoidably differ almost as much from many among the friends of revelation, as from its enemies. After all, fhould his undertaking be even crowned with fuccefs, objections are endless; and when refuted in one fhape, are foon propofed again in another. Nor is it an inconfiderable difadvantage, that the very bufinefs of refuting is in itself far from agreeable; and that there is ever too much caufe to fear, left the victory gained by reafon, fhould be fullied by reproach; and the duties of religion be facrificed even in establishing its truth. 5

[ocr errors]

. Yet,

Yet, furely, the enemies of revealed religion should not be permitted to triumph, though by the very moderation of its friends; nor the gospel go undefended, because there are fore difcouragements attending its defence. New objections certainly call for new replies; and to old objections ftill again repeated, old anfwers fhould be ftill again returned. Far more pleafing, indeed, is the employment of eftablishing truth, than of refuting falfhood: but if falfhood is actually advanced, the intereft of truth requires that it should be refuted. And whatever may be the difadvantages attending the tafk, it has this inducement to overpower them all; that he who endeavours, with fincerity and candour, to advance the knowledge, confirm the principles, and increase the influence of revealed religion, imitates fo far the divine example of him, who for this caufe came into the world, that he might bear witness to the truth.'

The principles advanced by the rational Christian, as he ftiles himself, and which he endeavours to fupport, are thefe ;-that Jefus was not a publifher of any revelation, in the proper fense of the word; nor taught any thing more than mere reafon itfelf teaches; and that whatever we find in the books of the New Teftament more than this, was either added to his genuine doctrines by the original writers, without authority from him, or has proceeded from the interpolations and forgeries of later times.

Thefe principles our Author refutes ; first, by proving their flagrant abfurdity, and the utter impoffibility of their being true; and afterwards, by examining diftinctly all thofe arguments which the rational Chriftian has moft confufedly tacked together in fupport of them.

It is a difagrecable task, as our Author complains, more than once, to answer fuch objections as are urged by the rational Chriftian; as there is a poffibility, however, of their misleading fuperficial readers, it is the duty of thofe, more especially, who preach the gospel, he fays, to confute them.

He begins with enquiring, Whether thofe parts of the New Teftament, which contain any thing more than the doctrines of a mere man who of his own accord taught the precepts of human reafon only, could be additions made to the real doctrines of JESUS, by the apofles themselves, without authority from him? After making it abundantly evident, that the divine character, and fupernatural doctrines afcribed to JESUS in the gofpels, as well as the fupernatural declarations of the apoftles in their epifties, cannot have been either the forgeries, or the unauthorifed productions of the apofiles themselves, he goes on to enquire whether they can have proceeded, as the rational Chrij tian would for the most part endeavour to perfuade us they have, from the interpolations and forgerics of later times.

6

• To

« AnteriorContinuar »