Divine truth together, we make a vulnerable theology; we claim assent to positions of which the mere denial is equivalent to a refutation; and in that case I do not see how the great interests of revela. tion, or the honour of its defenders, can escape unhurt." p. 156. "The evil and disservice done to truth by unscriptural positions like these is great. They bring in a wrong principle; they enforce a comment without a text; and they put to shame the modesty of Scripture, which is made to appear a feeble, indigent, and ill-informed witness of things, compared with the extraordinary disclosures which the expositor furnishes from the fund of his inventive and exuberant interpretation." p. 166. Without therefore adopting the author's conclusions, we fully concur with him as to the duty of a cautious inquiry, in all such speculations, what is Scripture, and what is not, of placing a curb on a licentious imagination, and reducing "the subject of sacrifice in its early history to its proper Scrip ture proof." p. 183. We have reserved to this place a single observation upon a disputed version of Gen. iv. 1, because we do not wish any of our remarks to rest on apocryphal authority. But Luther's translation of that passage, as is well known, is " Acquisivi hominem, qui Dominus est," viz. according to his idea, "the man, Jehovah," (p. 193,)—and, if it could be established, it would prove beyond dispute, that Eve expected the promised Redeemer under the name of Jehovah. Mr. Davison, however, observes upon it-" There is no question, in the present day, but that this version is founded on an inaccurate knowledge of the original text." p. 193. This (we must contend) is too strong an assertion. At all events, it may be said in favour of the sug. gested interpretation, that the verb, nap, is found only twelve times besides in the Old Testament, followed by the particle ; namely, Gen. xlvii. 19. 23; Lev. xxv. 28. 30; Ruth iv. 9, 10; 2 Sam. xxiv. 21; 1 Kings xvi. 24; Nehemiah v. S; Isaiahxi. 11; Jeremiah xxxii. 7, 8; and in every one of these instances the substan tive preceded by n, is the thing obtained; just as, in the very next sentence to the passage in question, the same particle twice introduces the person brought forth; which gives countenance to the idea, that the name Jehovah was, by the error of an antedating faith overleaping all intervening obstacles, like that of several modern interpreters of prophecy whom we could name, applied by Eve to her first-born son. Indeed, to justify the common rendering, the phrase, if it followed the analogy of other passages, should be-n. The only passages quoted by Simonis in his Lexicon, and by Dothe in the note to his Latin version on the passage, to justify the supposition of ns, being here used for ND, are Gen. xlix. 25, and 2 Kings xxiii. 35. In the former of these the preposition had already been used in the verse, and its power communicated to the succeeding word by the connecting particle 1. The latter passage may be more easily explained by the common principle of a double accusative following the verb, than by supposing this ellipsis. But we are always reluctant to defend any doctrine by novel or disputed interpretations of particular texts. In few instances, are these new translations found, after due inquiry, to be defensible; and, if they fail, the conclusion which they are brought to support, whether true or false in itself, suffers in the general estimation. We have just met with a pleasing pamphlet, which seems to be a detailed exemplification of Mr. Davison's theory of progressive prophecy, entitled, The gradual Development of the Office, Titles, and Character of Christ in the Prophets, a Proof of their Inspiration; by Allen Cooper, A. M. of Oriel College, Oxford, and published by Rivington. It is drawn up in a popular manner, very plainly, and is satisfactory in its statements, with one exception, that it leaves out of view the predictions given immediately by God himself, and examines only those which were vouchsafed through the medium of inspired prophets. There seems to be no reason for this omission in the nature of the case; and we recommend Mr. Cooper to supply the defect in another edition. We thought we had finished. But scarcely had we thought so, when there was put into our hands an Answer to Mr. Davison's Inquiry, by the Rev. John Edward Nassau Molesworth, M. A., Curate of Milbrook, Hants, and late of Trinity College, Oxford. The work is written with ability, and certainly deserves the serious consideration of the person to whom it is addressed, as well as of the public. There is this difference, however, between the Inquiry and the Answer: The Inquiry contends only, that the origin of sacrifice is left undetermined in Scripture; that its Divine original therefore, even if it be a truth, cannot claim to be a revealed truth; and that, on a fair examination of all the circumstances of the case, the hypothesis of its human original is the more probable of the two. The Answer, on the other hand, if it does not maintain that the Divine origin is revealed, argues, that it may be plainly inferred, and treats the opposite hypothesis as unwarrantable scepticism. We shall continue however to look at the question, as one on which good men may differ, and, viewing it in that light,shall proceed to lay before our readers an abstract of those additional considerations which have been brought forward, either originally or from preceding writers, by Mr. Molesworth, as increasing the probability of the conclusión, that the first institution of sacrifice was from God. We certainly think them important confirmations of the reasoning already pursued in the earlier part of this article. First, by an induction of particular facts, the author reasons from what the Almighty is admitted to have done, that it is incredible he should have omitted to instruct men in the mode in which he chose to be worshipped. He gave them language. He gave them clothing. He gave them a Sabbath. He gave them the promise of a Saviour. Is it probable that he should have omitted to instruct them in the way in which, before that Saviour came, he chose to be worshipped? If he failed to do this, the consequence is, that he left this important question to the discovery of their own reason; and then it will be difficult to account for the uniformity of the dictates of that reason in an affair which, upon the very face of it, would appear to be a matter of positive institution.— How, for instance, came animals of certain species to be every where offered in sacrifice, but beasts of prey and many domestic animals never? Further, if the sacrifice of victims was a reasonable, because an accepted, service, before the enactment of that law which made them typical of the atonement,it would follow, that it is a reasonable service now, and, having been accepted before the institution of the Mosaic ritual, cannot with propriety be discontinued after its abolition. Moreover,it is not easy to conceive, that the first efforts of human reason, groping, as it were, in the dark, after the fittest means of propitiating an offended Deity, should have hit upon the very expedient which the Divine wisdom afterwards ordained, as an apt emblem of that mysterious atonement which had been determined in the counsels of Omnipotence before the foundation of the world. These are considerations of probability, arising out of admitted facts, without reference to the express language of Scripture. But, in examining the sacred text for a solution of this question, Mr.Molesworth contends for a principle which is certainly ingenious, and perhaps solid. He argues, that the Pentateuch was not committed to writing, or at least not published, till after the promulgation of the Mosaical Law; and that consequently the true sense of any passage in it must be that in which it would have appeared to an Israelite in the time of Moses, when the ceremo→ nial law was in action. Now there were no persons in that generation, who could venture upon an act of sacrifice without a Divine direction, prescribing both the act itself and all its circumstances: nor, consequently, could they, unless it were distinctly so stated, have conceived of Abel's sacrifice or any of those offered before the law, as human inventions without any piacular signification. There are, moreover, several indications of this tacit impression even before that period; as for example, the statement in Ex. v. 3, x. 25, 26. Even in the account of Cain and Abel we meet with terms, borrowed, as it were, from the Law of Moses, and consequently conveying to an Israelitish ear notions of an appointed service and a mysterious sense. Such are the firstlings of the flock and the fat thereof, which distinguish the accepted offering, and distinguish also the offerings under the Law. Such too are the distinctions of clean and unclean animals in the ark of Noah. The frequent mention of the altars, erected by Abraham in every place to which he came, and still more of the victims which he was sometimes commanded to offer, confirms the same idea. Even the directed sacrifice of Isaac coincides with that view of sacrifice, which represents it as the result of a Divine command, and is at variance with every other. Again, it is to be remembered that Abel's sacrifice was accepted. God had respect unto it, and unto him who offered it: and yet what benefit did he derive from this acceptance of his service? For he was immediately afterwards murdered. Nevertheless the Apostle assures us, that by that sacrifice Abel obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts, that by that sacrifice he, being dead, yet speaketh; and both these effects he attributes to the faith of Abel. Does not all this indicate, that Abel's sacrifice respected some thing beyond what is recorded; and that his faith rested on a hope, surpassing any that his short and simple story shews to have been realized? These arguments certainly throw additional weight into the scale of a Divine institution; to which we have already assigned our reasons for adhering, as the more probable solution of the difficulty. But still it remains, that this Divine appointment of the first sacrifices is no where distinctly revealed; and we may therefore so far agree with Mr. Davison, that it ought not to be insisted upon as an expressly declared doctrine of Scripture; or placed upon a level with others, which are clearly such. We abstain from entering now into many of the questions litigated between Mr. Davison and his opponent, being desirous of leaving the scriptural evidence on this question without perplexity upon the mind of the reader. The question of the Levitical atonements appears to us involved in needless controversy. Properly speaking, there is, and can be, but one atonement for sin. The Levitical offerings were often called atonements, as signs are perpetually called by the name of the thing signified. But every sacrifice kept up the idea of an atonement, while the worthlessness of the victim suggested the necessity of some better offering which God might regard with favour. Every worshipper, who brought his lamb to the altar, thereby made a confession of sin, and acknowledged his faith in some appointed way of forgiveness. But every thing under the Mosaical Law was symbolical. The transgressions were ceremonial; the purifications were ceremonial; and although moral offences also brought the offenders before the mercy-seat of God in the sanctuary, every thing concurred to shew, that the Law had a shadow of good things to come, and was not the very image of the things. The moral law, which was from the beginning, enlightened the conscience of the worshippers; while the insufficiency in itself of the typical remedy involved their hope of pardon in a certain degree of indistinctness, disposing them to rest with more assurance on the distant promise, than on the in ́stituted medium of acceptance. Hence it may be said, that the Levitical sacrifices actually cleansed their offerers from ceremonial pollutions, and symbolically from moral; while the patriarchal sacrifices, if they had only respect to moral transgressions, can only have attributed to them a positive acceptance and a symbolical purification. On this subject, Mr. Molesworth has some original and striking observations, into which we forbear to enter at present, because they have only a remote connexion with the origin of sacrifice. His general scheme however is, that the Levitical expiations were designed for every description of offences on confession; not however for the remission of the temporal penalty incurred by them, but for the removal of the Divine displeasure; and, if there were any sins for which no atonement was provided, the reason is, because death was the temporal penalty annexed to those offences, and consequently no opportunity for returning into the congregation of accepted worshippers was afforded. On the whole, we have not been desirous of furnishing an analysis of the respective publications of Mr. Davison and Mr. Molesworth, so much as to hold our torch to every corner of this much-agitated question, and without referring more than is necessary to the respectable names by which each side is supported, to enable our readers to judge for themselves what is the weight of evidence by which it is to be determined. Our own opinion upon it has sufficiently appeared in the course of this review. But we do not think it unreasonable, in conclusion, to administer a caution to ourselves, and to our readers, against attaching to our own de ductions from imperfect evidence, an importance which belongs only to the infallible declarations of the word of God. On some things we must be content to be ignorant ; on others, to preserve a suspended judgment, or incline only to the more probable opinion with greater or less confidence in proportion to the degree of evidence which appears to us. But on all the points, most vitally affecting our peace and comfort, or necessary to our final salvation, we cannot too gratefully acknowledge, that we are encompassed with a flood of light which gives us a superiority as great as it is undeserved to all the ages that were before us. Another reply to Mr. Davison's argument respecting Abel's sacrifice and faith, from the pen of the Rev. W. Vansittart, has just reached us, but too late to be included in our review. review. After concluding his statement of the argument, and his objections to Mr. Davison's hypothesis, Mr. Vansittart remarks: "The reader must not fail to observe three points: the first, that Abel's faith could alone cause him to differ so much must have been the gift of God, which from Cain, as to help his infirmity to offer an acceptable sacrifice to God, while Cain and his offering were rejected. The which Abel obtained by his sacrifice that second point to observe is the testimony he was righteous, which as it is a proof that he was exempt from the imputation of death, the wages of sin, so it established his sacrifice to be of an expiatory nature, and himslef to be intitled to a reentry into paradise, or to have a right to eat of the tree of life; according as it is written, The just shall live by faith. The be esteemed a general truth, is this; that third point to be observed, and what may in old time the holy men spake and acted not by their own will, but by the Holy Ghost, 2 Pet. i. 21. And if their words or actions bear a strong resemblance to the character of the Messiah, we may conclude that they spake or acted by some Divine admonition with a reference to the Messiah at the Spirit's pre-direction. of Abel's lambs, in exempting from the Hence if the accepted blood-shedding wages of sin, bears a strong resemblance to the blood-shedding of the Lamb of God, it may be deemed to be uttered by Abel, not of his own will, but by the Holy Ghost pre-directing it into a resemblance to that of Christ." pp. 66, 67. LITERARY AND PHILOSOPHICAL INTELLIGENCE, &c. &c. GREAT BRITAIN. PREPARING for publication:-A Treatise on the Divine Sovereignty, by R. Wilson; -Anna Boleyn, a poem; by the Rev. H. Milman ;-A Popular Introduction to the Study of the Holy Scriptures, for the Use of mere English Readers; by W. Carpenter. In the press :-Three Discourses on the internal Evidences of Christianity, and the Causes of Unbelief; by J. Watson ;The Missionary's Memorial; or Verses on the Death of John Lawson, late Missionary at Calcutta ; by Bernard Barton; -Flowers gathered in Exile; by the late Rev. John Lawson ;-Travels in Norway, Sweden, &c.; by W. R. Wilson ;-Wisdom and Happiness; containing Selections from the Bible, Bishops Patrick, Taylor, &c.; by the Rev. H. Watkins. In a late trial, the law as to the right of publishing bona fide reports of proceedings in the Courts of Law was clearly laid down by Mr. Baron Garrow. His lordship observed, that he was fully of opinion, that a party had a right to give a fair, full, and impartial account of whatever took place in a court of justice; and for this reason that the public were entitled to be present in court, and to hear all that was going forward. A bill is before parliament for effecting extensive improvements in the metropolis, in the vicinity of Charing Cross. The purpose of the alterations will be, not only to embellish that part of the town, but to make a better communication between its Western and Eastern quarters. It is proposed to erect a quadrangle, the West side of which is already formed by the beautiful edifice occupied as the Union Club-house and the College of Physicians. The East side is to be erected on a line with the portico of St. Martin's Church. On the North there is to be a row of buildings, from Pall-Mall to Saint Martin's Church; and it is proposed that the paintings, statues, and works of art, possessed by the nation, should be placed in this range of building. The Strand is to be made sixty feet wide, from the quadrangle to Bedford-street. It is also proposed to make a spacious carriage-way from the new line of street into Leicestersquare; and a second communication with the Strand, between Castle-court and Bedford-street. In a paper by Sir H. Davy, in the last part of the Philosophical Transactions, it is mentioned, that, independently of the chemical, there is a mechanical wear of the copper of vessels in sailing, which, on the most exposed part of the ship, and in the most rapid course, bears a relation to it of nearly 2 to 4.55. As the result of actual experiment, as to the electro-chemical means of preserving the copper sheathing of vessels, he concludes that the proportion of protecting metal should be from 1-90th to 1-70th. The largest steam vessel ever built in this country was lately launched from Limehouse. She is called the Shannon, of 550 tons burden, and is intended to convey passengers and goods from London to Dublin, in seventy-two hours, calling at Margate, Dover, Portsmouth, and Falmouth, for passengers. The return of the Dean and Chapter of Westminster, to the order of the House of Commons, for an account of the sums charged for the admission of visitors to view the Monuments in the Abbey, states, that before his Majesty's coronation, in 1821, the whole sum permitted to be charged was one shilling and eleven pence; but the guides had obtained additional gratuities from the visitors, and complaints were made against these exactions. When the church was re-opened, after his Majesty's coronation, a new order was therefore made, and the utmost sum to be received was two shillings, all compensation to the guides being included in that sum. This regulation was con tinued till June, 1825, when this sum was lowered to one shilling and three-pence. The amount received from the above source was, in 1821, 648/.; in 1822, 2,317.; in 1823, 1,6637. ; in 1824, 1,5297. ; in 1825, 1,585. The above sums have been received by the minor canons, and the gentlemen of the choir, and divided among themselves. This grant was made to the choir in the year 1697, on the condition that, receiving the benefits from the exhibition of the Monuments, they should keep the Monuments clean. FRANCE. It has been strongly urged by M. de la Place, that all the nations of Europe, |