fhutting, and gently obeying the direction of fuch externals.” The confused turn of expreffion in this paffage, is fo uniform throughout, that the general remark cannot escape the reader; but there are two rhetorical efforts in it, that claim particular attention: these are, the conscious beauty attributed to the anemone, and the Writer's delicate care not to defame other. flowers. If those other flowers have a confcioufnrts of charac ter, Mr. H.'s tenderness is laudable, as defamation is cruel, and even actionable; the confcioufnels of beauty fhewn by the ane› mone, may perhaps have given difguft, and point out the rea fon of its being fo much neglected: feif conceit feldom efcapes. this mortification.

It was not without concern that we perceived, in Mr. Han bury, fomething of a difpofition to promote old wivery, in order to awaken our devotion; for which good purpose far fuperior motives are, we hope, to be urged on a rational foundation. Under the article paffiflora, the paffion flower, Mr. H. obferves that thefe flowers are well known; and in some countries ferve as monitors to the religious, as fhewing the inftruments of our bleffed Saviour's paffion; for they bring in the leaves of fome of the forts to reprefent fome part of it, and the contorted cirrhi the flagella with which he was fcourged. I fee no ill ufe to be made of this, and am for encouraging every thing that may raife in us due reflection, and awaken us to a fenfe of devotion and of our duty.' On the contrary, it is to be apprehended that fuperftition, being a veneration contracted by FOLLY for NONSENSE, can be converted to no use without the intervention of knavery; and what kind of purpose it will then be made to ferve, is left to the reflection of every fenfible and honest man.

As to the botanical doctrine, and the preceptive rules, exhibited in the work, Mr. Hanbury is himself too able a gardener, and has moreover called in the affiftance of Miller's reprobated dic tionary too frequently, to leave them open to any very mate rial impeachment: at the fame time that thefe volumes bear no ftriking, appearances of fuperiority, to diftinguish them above all those which this Gentleman treats with fuch con

tempt, as extreamly defective, unnatural, and abfurd., N.

ART. II. An Attempt to demonftrate the Meffiabship of Jefus, from the prophetic History and Chronology of Meffiah's Kingdom in Daniel. By Richard Parry, D. D. Preacher at Market-Harborough. 8vo, 2s. 6d. Davis. 1773.

WE

E have had more than one opportunity of mentioning this Writer in terms of approbation. His endeavours to elucidate Scripture, and to remove the difficulties with which feveral

feveral particular paffages are attended, are commendable, even where his attempts may not be deemed entirely fuccessful. In the prefent cafe, it is no mean talk that he hath undertaken. The predictions of Daniel, when confidered in a general view, feem very clear; and it appears eafy enough to de termine the grand leading events prefigured by them. But, when they come to be minutely examined, questions arise which do not admit of a ready folution, though they are far from invalidating the arguments which may be drawn from his prophecies to fupport the truth of divine revelation. The learned Profeffor Michaelis hath lately pointed out, in a striking manner, the various difficulties which attend the famous prophecy of the seventy weeks; and, at the same time, he hath gone far ther, in our opinion, towards a true explication of it, than any preceding author.

'Three of Daniel's principal predictions are examined by Dr. Parry, in the work before us. With regard to the first of them, Nebuchadnezzar's dream, it admits, accompanied with Daniel's interpretation of it, fo eafy an explanation, that there is fcarce any prophecy in the Old Teftament the meaning of which is more perfpicuous and determinate. This prophecy our Author juftly entitles, The Kingdom of Heaven; or the Fall of Paganifm?

The next prediction, confidered by Dr. Parry, is Daniel's vifion of the four great wild beafts which came from the fea. The firk part of this vifion is fufficiently clear; but the concluding part of it hath been very differently explained by dif ferent writers. Our Author refers it to the fall of Judaism, and hath taken great pains to fhew that the little horn is defcriptive of the province of Judea. What he hath faid upon the fubject, is undoubtedly worthy of attention; though candid and judicious critics may, perhaps, ftill think that there is room for hefitation and debate.

Dr. Parry, at the close of his remarks upon Daniel's vifion, having taken occafion to apply himself to the members of the papal communion, makes the following judicious and liberal application to the protestants: We indeed, fays he, have prudibly withdrawn ourfelves from the groffer pollutions of that meretricious community. How far a fecond REFORMATION may be either neceffary or expedient, I must not take upon me to determine. This, however, may be faid with truth, and therefore, it is hoped, without offence, that the more there is OF THIS WORLD in our ecclefiaftical establishment, the nearer it is to POPERY, and the farther from the SIMPLICITY OF THE GOSPEL.'

Our Author, in his explication of the prophecy of the seventy weeks, endeavours to fhew, that the commencement of these weeks must be fixed from the fecond year of Darius Nothus B 4

King

King of Perfia. It is objected to this opinion, that the perfons who are represented by the prophet Haggai, as having feen both temples, muft have been of an age beyond belief; becaufe from the destruction of the temple to the fecond of Darius Nothus, were an hundred and fixty fix years. Dr. Parry's reply to this objection, is too curious and extraordinary to be omitted. I anfwer, fays he, in the words of a very illuftrious writer on another occafion, "the promifes of God have never borrowed help from moral probabilities." His promifes to Abraham were not of this kind. And why then fhould they be of this kind to the children of Abraham? The Jews lived under an extraordinary difpenfation of providence. Long life was the general promife of the Mofaic law to the obedient. And this promife was particularly repeated at the time: we are fpeaking of.

There fhall yet old men and old women dwell in the streets of Jerufalem, and every man with his ftaff in his band for very age." Who now can think it improbable, when events corre fpond fo exactly with every part of the prophecy, that fome among the Jews fhould be found of an exceeding great age? "If it be marvellous in the eyes of the people in thefe days, fhould it also be marvellous in mine eyes, faith the Lord of Hofts."

Such a method of removing difficulties, can never fatisfy a difcerning critic, or do honour to revelation. At the time to which the objection refers, it was as contrary to the state of things under the Jewish difpenfation, as it was to the usual course of nature for perfons to live above an hundred and fixtyfix years. Indeed, the promise of long life under the Mosaic law, did not originally include the term contended for by our learned Author. Unless, therefore, he can find out a more rational mode of anfwering the objections to his hypothefis, it muft, we are afraid, fall to the ground.

Dr. Parry has added, as he did in his laft publication*, a variety of notes, fome of which are ingenious and valuable. That upon the number 666, the number of the beaft in the book of Revelations, has very confiderable merit; and fo likewife has the note upon St. Paul's Addrefs to the high priest of the Jews. We by no means agree with our Author in his opinion, that the title of Chriftians was given to the difciples at Antioch by divine appointment. Dr. Lardner's reasons to the contrary, appear to us decifive upon the subject. Neither do we approve of what Dr. Parry hath faid concerning the man of fin. That St. Paul's reprefentation of the man of fin is peculiarly defcriptive of the papal power, has been fo clearly fhewn

* The genealogies of Chrift in Matth. and Luke explained. See Review, vol. xlvi, p. 62,

by

by Benson, Duchal, Warburton, Newton, and Hurdd, that we cannot help confidering them as having given by far the most probable explication of the prophecy.

K.

ART. III. Remarks on the Opinions of fome of the most celebrated Writers on Crown Law, refpecting the due Diftinction between Manflaughter and Murder: Being an Attempt to fhew, that the Plea of fudden Anger cannot remove the Imputation and Guilt of Murder, when a mortal Wound is wilfully given with a Weapon: That the Indulgence allowed by the Courts to voluntary Manflaughter in Rencounters, and in fudden Affrays and Duels, is indifcriminate, and without foundation in Law: And that Impunity in fuch Cafes of voluntary Manflaughter, is one of the principal Caufes of the Continuance and prefent Increase of the bafe and disgraceful Practice of Duelling. To which are added, fome Thoughts on the particular Cafe of the Gentlemen of the Army when involved in fuch disagreeable private Differences. With a prefatory Address to the Reader, concerning the Depravity and Folly of modern Men of Honour, falfely fo called; including a fhort Account of the Principles and Defign of the Work. By Granville Sharp. 8vo. 1 s. 6d. White, &c. 1773.

ROM the verbofe title of this performance, it will appear that its tendency is to prove the decifion of private quarrels by private combat, to be contrary to law; and that when one of the parties falls, the furvivor is guilty of wilful murder, and is not intitled to the mitigated verdict of manslaughter in which conclufion it is difficult to diffent from the writer. In his preface he makes the following juft diftinction between wilful murder and manslaughter.

Now, certain it is, that fome allowance ought to be made for heat of blood upon a fudden provocation, in confideration of the extreme frailty of human nature, provided there are no circumftances of malice in the cafe. As if (for inftance) a man, in fudden anger, fhould ftrike another, merely with his fit, or a fmall cane, or flick, meaning only to correct, and fhould accidentally kill; this would be, properly, manslaughter; which, though it is deemed felony (as the act of ftriking, or beating another perfon is, in itself, unlawful), is nevertheless pardonable both by the laws of God and man. But when two perfons fight with dangerous weapons, an intention of killing is expreffed by the weapons; and fuch intention renders the manslaughter voluntary, which is the fame thing as wilful; and confequently the "malice prepenfed" (which excludes the benefit of clergy) is necessarily implied, though the fudden anger be but a moment before the fatal ftroke; for malice prepenfed" is thus defined by Sir Edward Coke, "That is (fays he) voluntary, and of set purpose, though done upon a fudden occafion: for if it be voluntary the law implieth malice." 3-Inft. c. xiii, p. 62.'

The

The Author has fhewn much reading in establishing this point, and, presuming on the fairness of his quotations, has detected feveral inconfiftencies in the writings of our most famous lawyers in diftinguishing between murder and manslaughter; though he may not have given his argument all the advantages it was capable of receiving. To infift on the Levitical law, and to ascertain the true reading of Hebrew texts, will not be likely to operate much in confuting the current principles of modern honour: nor do gentlemen in fettling their frivolous punctilios, concern themselves greatly in pleas of the crown. It appears, however, from this treatise, that our lawyers have, in fact, countenanced the pernicious cuftom of duelling, by temporifing and warping their opinions, to make more allowances for it than the public good of fociety will warrant. Selfdefence, as he obferves, cannot be pleaded in behalf of men who meet by confent to attack each other with deadly weapons.

Mr. Sharp, however, like other fanguine men, extends his argument to an abfurd length; for after endeavouring to oppole this point of honour among the gentlemen of the army, by arguments not well adapted to their notions of things, and therefore not calculated to have with them the force that might perhaps be wished, he introduces the following firange principle: The law, fays he, will not excufe an unlawful act by a foldier, even though he commits it by the exprefs command of the highest military authority in the kingdom: and much less is the foldier obliged to conform himself implicitly to the mese. opinions and false notions of honour, which his fuperiors may have unfortunately adopted.-Even in publick military service, or warlike expeditions by national authority, the law manifeftly requires the foldier to think for bimfelf; and to confider, before he acts in any war, whether the fame be just; for, if it be otherwife, the common law of this kingdom will impute to him the guilt of murder.

And though the law does not actually punish fuch general crimes, as may unfortunately have obtained, at any time, the fanction of government; yet the time will certainly come, when all fuch temporizing military murderers must be refponfible for the innocent blood that is fhed in an unjust war, if they have rendered themselves accessaries to it by an implicit, and, therefore, criminal obedience to the promoters of it. " Item fit homicidium in bello," (fays the learned Bracton) "et tunc videndum utrum bellum fit juftum vel injuftum. Si autem injuftum, tenebitur occifor: fi autem juftum, ficut pro defenfione patria, non tenebitur, nifi hoc fecerit corrupta voluntate et intentione."

• Men of true banour, therefore, at the fame time that they are fenfible of their duty as foldiers and subjects to their king, must be mindful that they are fubject also to the empire of reafon,

and