· The manner in which each Book of the New Testament was authenticated, and transmitted from one particular Church to another in the Apostolic age, is plainly stated by Mr. Rennell; and the testimonies which he produces to prove that the Canon of the New Testament was very early formed, and generally acknowledged, cannot fail to be satisfactory to the candid inquirer. Having laid these before his readers, he says,

"From the best and most ancient testimony therefore, we conclude that the Canon or catalogue of the Scriptures of the New Testament was framed not by the decision of any individual, nor by the authority of any Council, but by the general consent of the whole Christian Church-that this consent immediately followed the death of the Apostles-that no other Gospel or Epistle ever claimed an admission into the Sacred Volume, besides those which we at present possess-that two centuries before the council of Laodicea, the matter was settled without difficulty or dispute. Some little doubt might once have been entertained, for reasons which it is now immaterial to notice, in the two great Churches with respect to one or two books which were soon after generally admitted ; but none was ever expressed, with respect to any apocryphal com. positions, whether of those which are now in existence, or of those whose names only have descended to posterity." P. 146.

Upon evidence of the same decisive nature, he establishes the fact, that no inspired work has been lost. Not only is it certain, that every separate portion of the New Testament is divinely inspired; but that it contains all which the wisdom of Providence has judged it necessary to dictate for the information of the Church. A believing mind indeed will scarcely require human evidence of this; since it will undoubtedly conclude, that the providence of God would effectually interfere for the preservation of any book written under the especial superintendance of the Holy Spirit. But still, it is highly satisfactory to know that human testimony may be produced decisive of the fact; and that the gainsayer and the sceptic may be refuted by a kind of witness, against which their own principles will not allow them to object. The only passage in the New Testament which seems, even at first sight, to favour the supposition that any inspired writing has been lost, is found in the following words, 1 Cor. v. 9. "I wrote unto you in an Epistle not to company with fornicators," &c.

We willingly insert the remarks of Mr. Rennell on the passage, as a specimen of his ability and judgment as an interpreter of the duvonta of the great Apostle.

"Many have concluded from hence, that the Epistle of St. Paul in which this precept was contained, has perished. A little attention

differ

however to the passage will place the whole matter in a very ent point of view. In the first place we must remark, that the words which are here translated in an Epistle, ought, without any doubt, to be rendered in the, or in this Epistle, such being the sense of the article in the original. Accordingly we find in the beginning of the chapter the very precept in question. It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you.' As, therefore, the company of such offenders, like a little leaven would leaven the whole lump, the Apostle commands them to purge out therefore the old leaven, i. e. those fornicators whose society would corrupt and defile them. Lest, however, they should so far mistake the command, as to withdraw themselves entirely from the world, the Apostle explains himself, and informs them that his injunction does not extend to fornicators among the Heathen, for with such in the ordinary intercourse of life they must associate, but that it applies only to their Christian brethren.

"9. I wrote unto you in an Epistle not to company with fornicators, "10. Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners or idolaters, for then must ye needs gu out of the world.

11. But now have I written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous; or an idola. ter, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner—with such an one not to eat.

"As an additional proof of an error in the translation, we are to observe, that the identical word, which in the ninth verse is translated, I wrote,' in the eleventh verse is translated I have written.' Let the latter tense be adopted, as it ought to be, in both verses, and with the addition of the demonstrative article, the sense of the passage will be perfectly clear, without having recourse to the improbable supposition of any previous Epistle. The following paraphrase of the verses in question, which very nearly coincides with that of Mr. Jones, may, perhaps, be thought satisfactory.

9. I have written to you, a little above, (ver. 2) in this letter, that you should separate yourselves from those who are fornicators, and because you may be in danger of being polluted by them, that you should purge them out from among you, as the old leaven, (ver. 5, 6.)

10. Do not however mistake me: I do not mean that you should separate yourselves from such among the heathen as are fornicators, extortioners, or idolaters: for if you were to do so, you might as well go out of the world.

that

11. But this is the meaning of what I have written to you; you should not hold any communication, nor admit to the supof the Lord, any among your Christian brethren, who are offenders in these points.'

per

"There are many passages indeed in this Epistle, which leadus to think that it was the first communication of the Apostle to the

Corinthians, since his departure from them. In the beginning, both of the second and of the fifteenth chapters, he recalls their atten tion to his residence among them, and to what he then said and did, as if he had sent them nothing, which might either have refreshed their faith or renewed their obligations. Now as in the second Epistle, he refers perpetually to the first, we might fairly suppose that in this Epistle, which we now call the first, he would have referred also in a manner equally decisive, to his former one, if any such had ever existed. Such a reference indeed would have been especially necessary, as, if we suppose a former Epistle, we must also suppose that the offence against which he forewarned them, had been subsequently repeated; he would not therefore have failed to have charged them with direct disobedience to his positive command. So far, however, from this being the case, it appears from the very expressions which he uses, that he had but recently heard of the offence. This circumstance of itself militates against the supposition of any previous Epistle; for if the crime had prevailed to such a degree, as to have already required the interference of the Apostle, he would not have written the second time, as if he had but just heard of the accusation from common report. • It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you.' Besides, the very words in which he passes his judgment of excommunication against the offender, (ver. 3, 4, 5,) lead us to believe that it was now passed for the first time. The supposition, therefore, of a lost Epistle is groundless; nor do the words of the Apostle, when fairly examined, lead to any such conclusion." P. 149.

We earnestly recommend this volume to our readers. It has been written for the information and assistance, not of the learned, to whom the sources from which Mr. Rennell has drawn his facts and arguments are familiar, but of Christians in general; of those who require to be furnished with a short, plain, and satisfactory answer to each of the perplexing and insidious questions which modern infidelity is so skilful in proposing. Of those questions, such as relate to the general evidences of Christianity have been often answered; but that particular stumbling block, which the Editors of the Apocry phal Volume have endeavoured to raise by their publication, has not, as far as we are aware, been yet removed by any popular treatise.

We trust therefore that this will find its way into the study of every Christian, who desires to be able to give an answer, to those who inquire of him a reason of the hope that is in him. And it will enable him to give that answer in such a manner, as at once to satisfy his own mind, and put every idle talker to silence, and every infidel disputer to shame.

ART. II. Dissertation; exhibiting a General View of the Progress of Mathematical and Physical Science, since the revival of Letters in Europe. By Professor Playfair, originally prefixed to the Third Volume of the Supplement to the Encyclopædia Britannica. Constable and Co. Edinburgh.

THE history of human knowledge, when studied with the view of becoming acquainted with the mental powers, the various contrivances, and ingenious expedients which have been employed in its acquisition, is often of more value than that knowledge itself. This is particularly the case with several descriptions of science which fall under the head of natural philosophy; where theory has succeeded theory, and even divided the suffrages of the learned during very lengthened periods of time, although the interpretation of physical phenomena on which they were founded proceeded on no surer principle than the mere dogma of a speculatist, or the hasty inferences of an empiric. The very errors of ingenious men become instructive, when presented to the reader in connection with the circumstances in which they arose, and the grounds on which they were maintained. It is like the study of morbid anatomy to the practical physician; the healthy state of the functions is best made known, by a minute knowledge of the effects which a deranged action induces; and which are often found to indicate at once the source of the disease and the nature of the remedy.

Nor is there any way by which we shall arrive so surely at a just appreciation of the knowledge which we actually possess, as by tracing the painful and laborious steps through which our predecessors made their progress, age after age, to its gradual attainment. It is not until we have marked the anxious and uncertain endeavours that they found themselves compelled to make, in the search of principles which now appear almost self-evident, and of facts which seem to lie on the very surface of nature, that we learn to estimate the amount of our own treasures, and the extent of the obligation under which we stand to the zealous and indefatigable exertions of those who have lived before us. In tracing the progress of the human mind, we cannot help perceiving that the abundant crops of knowledge by which modern society is so greatly enriched and adorned, are not owing so much to our own skill or labour as to the persevering toils of those who first cleared, the ground and broke up the soil.

It is extremely obvious at the same time to remark, that in

no department of human research is the distance greater between the point where science must have begun, and that to which it has attained, than in the main branches of mathematics, and natural philosophy. Between the rude computation 1-1, the notches, and knots 1-1 of the savage, and the algebraical analysis, or the differential calculus of the modern mathematician, the distance is so immense that there is no ground on which to compare them, except that the object of both is to number and arrange individual substances. The same remark is applicable to almost every department of physical science; for, although the phenomena of the material world are perhaps more constantly under the eye of man when in the first and simple states of society, than at any subsequent stage of his advancement towards the polish and refinement of a higher condition, it is long before their true nature is understood by him, or their succession and connection accurately determined. Man first worships the powers of nature in superstitious ignorance; and afterwards, when he has ceased to regard them as gods, subjects them to examination, and finally reduces them into classes, as scientific principles.

The history of science, therefore, is the history of man. It gives a view of his pursuits, his enjoyments, and of his general condition as a rational creature. It affords the means of marking his progress in the career of improvement to which his nature invites him, and in which, when unimpeded by the pressure of external circumstances, his ambition and his wants carry him gradually forward. In a word, the history of science will point out the various stages in that long road, in which the human being seems doomed to travel, before he can become acquainted with the objects which are most familiar to his eyes, or learn to avail himself of the numerous materials of comfort, dignity, and power with which he is constantly surrounded.

To write well the history of science, it is, of course, necessary to know not only the limits by which it is now bounded, but also the origin whence its several branches sprang, and the sources from which these have been from time to time enlarged and brought to maturity. As to the most ancient portions of human knowledge, it is indeed extremely difficult to mark either a beginning or a progress. In many cases, we have the result recorded, without any intimation in regard to the means which must have been employed in order to produce it, or of the numerous uusuccessful attempts by which discovery must have been assisted, and the labours of invention ultimately facilitated. In many instances which might be pointed out in the works of Euclid, Aristotle, and Archi